3 ms·

For the sake of 25KB for the full Lodash library, is it really going to make much difference? That size will be eclipsed by just a single small image on your we

For the sake of 25KB for the full Lodash library, is it really going to make much difference? That size will be eclipsed by just a single small image on your website. Development is all about tradeoffs. Liberal use of Lodash can make for clean code that abstracts away subtle browser differences. For a small download size it sounds like a great tradeoff to me.

nailer 10y ago
The stdlib (and whatever polyfill you're using for old browsers) also abstracts away subtle browser differences. However stdlib looks more like the rest of JS. Totally agreed about size though: it's tiny. There are other reasons to prefer stdlib but size isn't one of them.
spriggan3 10y ago
If the 25KB are packaged with each library you add to your webpage, + ads , + analytics then maybe. One often doesn't need lodash. In fact, the only methods one does need are Object.keys to get the keys of an object and Array.prototype.reduce to iterate over an array, 90% of the time. But yes, difference, zip, chunk, assign... are semantic and make for cleaner code. And yes flatten, xor are non trivial to implement, and the code one doesn't write is the code one doesn't have to test if already tested. Of course, the best solution would be for the ECMA spec to implement most of lodash methods. I would also like to see an official way to curry, the same way Function.bind allows partial application.
kerker123 10y ago
nopes estas noche
smrtinsert 10y ago
Talking about the size of a lib in kb will fall on deaf ears here at hacker news. It's all about micro libs and nothing you don't need. Never mind the first few images on the site you are working for change daily and come out to several megs each will completely eclipse any library that changes once in blue moon.
sotojuan 10y ago
You can even install each Lodash method separately as it's own module or use Rollup/Webpack 2 to tree-shake and ignore unused code. Size is no longer an issue with Lodash.

nailer 10y ago

The stdlib (and whatever polyfill you're using for old browsers) also abstracts away subtle browser differences. However stdlib looks more like the rest of JS. Totally agreed about size though: it's tiny. There are other reasons to prefer stdlib but size isn't one of them.

spriggan3 10y ago

If the 25KB are packaged with each library you add to your webpage, + ads , + analytics then maybe. One often doesn't need lodash. In fact, the only methods one does need are Object.keys to get the keys of an object and Array.prototype.reduce to iterate over an array, 90% of the time. But yes, difference, zip, chunk, assign... are semantic and make for cleaner code. And yes flatten, xor are non trivial to implement, and the code one doesn't write is the code one doesn't have to test if already tested. Of course, the best solution would be for the ECMA spec to implement most of lodash methods. I would also like to see an official way to curry, the same way Function.bind allows partial application.

kerker123 10y ago

nopes estas noche

smrtinsert 10y ago

Talking about the size of a lib in kb will fall on deaf ears here at hacker news. It's all about micro libs and nothing you don't need. Never mind the first few images on the site you are working for change daily and come out to several megs each will completely eclipse any library that changes once in blue moon.

sotojuan 10y ago

You can even install each Lodash method separately as it's own module or use Rollup/Webpack 2 to tree-shake and ignore unused code. Size is no longer an issue with Lodash.