Benchmark: Ramda pipe vs lodash flow

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash-fp/0.10.4/lodash-fp.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];
var isOdd = n => n % 2 === 1;

Tests:

Ramda pipe
R.pipe(R.filter(isOdd),R.map(x => x+1));
lodash flow
_.flow(_.filter(isOdd), _.map(x => x + 1));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda pipe
lodash flow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda pipe	2891378.5 Ops/sec
lodash flow	1178430.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares the performance of two popular functional programming libraries in JavaScript: Ramda and Lodash.

**What's being tested:**

The benchmark tests the efficiency of chaining operations to process an array of numbers using both libraries' "piping" functionality.

* **Ramda pipe:** `R.pipe(R.filter(isOdd), R.map(x => x+1))`
  * This applies two functions in sequence:
    1. `R.filter(isOdd)`: Keeps only odd numbers from the array.
    2. `R.map(x => x + 1)`: Adds 1 to each remaining number.

* **Lodash flow:** `_.flow(_.filter(isOdd), _.map(x => x + 1))`
  * Similar to Ramda's pipe, this chains the same two functions together.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of using Ramda's `pipe` function versus Lodash's `flow` function for chaining functional operations.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Ramda:** Known for its concise syntax and a focus on pure functions, often resulting in more readable code. However, it can have a steeper learning curve due to its unique functional paradigm.
* **Lodash:** More widely adopted with a broader range of functions beyond just functional programming. It's generally considered easier to learn and use for beginners.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Performance**: The benchmark results will show which library is faster in this specific scenario. Keep in mind that performance can vary depending on the complexity of the operations, the size of the data, and other factors.
* **Readability**: While Ramda's syntax might be more compact, it could also be less intuitive for programmers unfamiliar with functional programming.

**Alternatives:**

Besides Ramda and Lodash, there are other JavaScript libraries that offer similar functionality:

* **Immutable.js:**  Focuses on immutability (data doesn't change directly) and provides efficient data structures and transformations.
* **Function Composition Libraries**: Explore smaller, more focused libraries designed specifically for function composition, like `compose`.

Let me know if you have any other questions or want to explore specific aspects in more detail!

Related benchmarks:

Ramda pipe vs lodash flow (version: 0)

check this out

Comparing performance of: Ramda pipe vs lodash flow

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda pipe

lodash flow

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 2 months ago):