Benchmark: [sited] Lodash vs native map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/node-uuid/1.4.8/uuid.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

// Generate random collection
var data = []
for (var i = 0; i < 5000; i++) {
    data.push({
        name: uuid.v4(),
        number: Math.random() * 1000,
    })
}

Tests:

map-native
data.map(function (o) {return o.name + o.number.toString()})
map-lodash
_.map(data, function (o) {return o.name + o.number.toString()})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map-native
map-lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to map over an array of objects in JavaScript:

1. Native `map` function
2. Lodash `_.map` function

The test case creates a random collection of 5000 objects with `name` and `number` properties using the UUID library for generating unique names.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

A) Native JavaScript `map` function
B) Lodash `_.map` function

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native JavaScript `map` function

Pros:

1. **Native performance**: As a native function, it's likely to be optimized for performance.
2. **Low overhead**: It requires minimal setup and no additional dependencies.

Cons:

1. **Limited functionality**: The native `map` function only iterates over the array once, which might not be sufficient in some scenarios.
2. **No built-in support for string concatenation**: You need to concatenate strings using `+`, which can lead to performance issues if done inside the callback function.

### Lodash `_.map` function

Pros:

1. **Convenience**: It's a well-maintained, widely-used library that provides a simple and expressive API.
2. **Built-in support for string concatenation**: `_` returns the new array with concatenated strings, reducing overhead.

Cons:

1. **Additional dependency**: You need to include Lodash in your project, which can increase bundle size.
2. **Potential performance impact**: Although Lodash is well-optimized, it's still a foreign function call that might incur some overhead.

**Library Used: UUID**

The `uuid` library is used to generate unique names for the objects in the array. It provides a simple way to generate random UUIDs using the `v4()` method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like arrow functions (used in the callback functions) and template literals (used for string concatenation) are not explicitly mentioned. However, they're commonly used in JavaScript development.

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash, you could consider using other mapping libraries or implementing your own mapping function. Some alternatives include:

* Vanilla JavaScript array methods like `forEach()` and `reduce()`
* Other libraries like Lo-Dash (a smaller alternative to Lodash) or Ramda
* Creating a custom mapping function using recursion or iteration

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation ultimately depends on your project's specific requirements, performance constraints, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.83 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
map-native	1837.8 Ops/sec
map-lodash	1863.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

[sited] Lodash vs native map (version: 8)

Comparing performance of: map-native vs map-lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

map-native

map-lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):