3 ms·
> It looks like underscore is more popular than lodash. I think this table is flawed. I think this way of going about data analysis is flawed... "I don't like
by rattray 12y ago
> It looks like underscore is more popular than lodash. I think this table is flawed.
I think this way of going about data analysis is flawed... "I don't like this conclusion, so I'm going to massage the data until it supports my preference".
I do agree that it'd be nice if the npm maintainers went about clearing out all the dead projects though.
- untog 12y agoYeah, I don't understand that. Why would lodash automatically be more popular than Underscore?
- tbassetto 12y agoFrom what I've read, lodash does everything underscore does, faster (and it also does more). I may be missing something but there are virtually no reasons to still use underscore unless you just don't want to update your project's dependencies (which is fine, no harm done).
- lowboy 12y agoAs tbassetto said, I can't see any reasons to use Underscore over Lo-Dash. Performance is on par or better, AMD/CommonJS modularity out of the gate, and their CLI can be used to build a minimal version of the lib based on the functions you need. I wrote an article on how you can analyze source code and produce a minimal Lo-Dash build in only 73 characters: http://jjt.io/2014/07/18/analyzing-source-files-to-automatically-create-custom-lo-dash-builds-in-73-characters/ http://jjt.io/2014/07/18/analyzing-source-files-to-automatic...
- ChiperSoft 12y agoI think it was supposed to be a joke about the rivalry between underscore and lodash.