underscore

Pros of Lodash

• Better performance for many operations
• More comprehensive set of utility functions
• Modular structure allowing for cherry-picking specific functions

Cons of Lodash

• Larger file size when using the full library
• Steeper learning curve due to more extensive API

Code Comparison

Underscore:

_.map([1, 2, 3], function(num) { return num * 3; });
_.filter([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], function(num) { return num % 2 == 0; });

Lodash:

_.map([1, 2, 3], num => num * 3);
_.filter([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], num => num % 2 === 0);

Key Differences

• Lodash offers more consistent cross-browser behavior
• Underscore has a smaller footprint and simpler API
• Lodash provides additional features like deep cloning and more advanced array/object manipulation
• Underscore focuses on functional programming paradigms
• Lodash has better support for working with large datasets

Community and Maintenance

• Both libraries have active communities
• Lodash tends to receive more frequent updates and has a larger contributor base
• Underscore has a more stable API with fewer breaking changes

Use Cases

• Underscore is suitable for smaller projects or when a lightweight solution is needed
• Lodash is preferred for larger applications or when advanced utility functions are required

Pros of Ramda

• Emphasizes functional programming paradigms with immutable data structures
• Supports function composition and currying out of the box
• Designed for better tree-shaking, allowing for smaller bundle sizes

Cons of Ramda

• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with functional programming
• Less widespread adoption compared to Underscore
• May require additional setup or configuration in some projects

Code Comparison

Underscore:

_.map([1, 2, 3], function(num) { return num * 2; });
_.filter([1, 2, 3, 4], function(num) { return num % 2 == 0; });

Ramda:

R.map(x => x * 2, [1, 2, 3]);
R.filter(x => x % 2 === 0, [1, 2, 3, 4]);

Both libraries provide utility functions for working with arrays and objects, but Ramda's approach is more aligned with functional programming principles. Ramda's functions are automatically curried, allowing for easier function composition and partial application. Underscore, on the other hand, offers a more imperative style that may be more familiar to developers coming from object-oriented backgrounds.

While Underscore has been a popular choice for many years, Ramda has gained traction among developers who prefer a more functional approach to JavaScript programming. The choice between the two often depends on the project requirements and the team's familiarity with functional programming concepts.

Pros of You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore

• Promotes native JavaScript methods, reducing dependency on external libraries
• Provides modern alternatives that can lead to better performance and smaller bundle sizes
• Serves as an educational resource for learning native JavaScript capabilities

Cons of You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore

• Lacks the comprehensive API and consistent cross-browser support of Underscore
• May require more verbose code in some cases compared to Underscore's concise methods
• Doesn't provide a unified interface for handling different browser implementations

Code Comparison

Underscore:

_.map([1, 2, 3], function(num) { return num * 2; });

You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore (native JavaScript):

[1, 2, 3].map(num => num * 2);

Underscore:

_.filter([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], function(num) { return num % 2 == 0; });

You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore (native JavaScript):

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].filter(num => num % 2 === 0);

Both approaches achieve similar results, but You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore encourages using native JavaScript methods, which can lead to more maintainable and future-proof code. However, Underscore provides a consistent API across browsers and includes additional utility functions that may be useful in certain scenarios.

Pros of collect.js

• More modern syntax and ES6+ features
• Chainable methods for improved readability
• Extensive documentation with examples

Cons of collect.js

• Smaller community and fewer contributors
• Less battle-tested in production environments
• Fewer utility functions compared to Underscore

Code Comparison

collect.js:

collect([1, 2, 3, 4])
  .filter(n => n > 2)
  .map(n => n * 2)
  .toArray();

Underscore:

_.chain([1, 2, 3, 4])
  .filter(n => n > 2)
  .map(n => n * 2)
  .value();

Summary

collect.js is a more modern alternative to Underscore, offering chainable methods and improved syntax for working with collections in JavaScript. It provides extensive documentation and examples, making it easier for developers to get started. However, Underscore has a larger community, more contributors, and a longer track record in production environments. Underscore also offers a wider range of utility functions beyond collection manipulation.

The code comparison shows that both libraries support method chaining, but collect.js uses a more intuitive toArray() method to finalize the chain, while Underscore uses value(). collect.js's syntax feels more natural for developers familiar with modern JavaScript practices.

Choose collect.js for modern projects prioritizing readability and chainable operations, while Underscore remains a solid choice for projects requiring a broader set of utility functions and a more established ecosystem.

Pros of mout

• Modular architecture allows for selective importing, potentially reducing bundle size
• Broader utility function coverage, including more advanced array and object manipulation
• AMD, CommonJS, and global support for better compatibility across different environments

Cons of mout

• Less popular and less widely adopted compared to Underscore
• Documentation may not be as comprehensive or user-friendly
• Smaller community and ecosystem around the project

Code Comparison

mout:

import map from 'mout/array/map';
import sum from 'mout/math/sum';

const numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4];
const doubled = map(numbers, n => n * 2);
const total = sum(doubled);

Underscore:

const _ = require('underscore');

const numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4];
const doubled = _.map(numbers, n => n * 2);
const total = _.reduce(doubled, (sum, n) => sum + n, 0);

Summary

mout offers a more modular approach with a wider range of utility functions, making it suitable for projects that require specific functionality without unnecessary bloat. However, Underscore benefits from greater popularity, more extensive documentation, and a larger community. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, bundle size considerations, and personal preference for API style and ecosystem support.