“Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#2If you find yourself annoyed by some aspects of Underscore, you might want to check out Lodash[1]. Lodash's API is a superset of Underscore, though you can create custom builds with only the parts you need. In general, Lodash performs better and has fewer bugs than Underscore. Unlike Underscore, Lodash has 100% test coverage. Also, Lodash has some handy things like _.cloneDeep(), and semantic versioning. That means your package.json can have "lodash": "3.x" in its dependencies without worrying about breakage.
For a more in-depth discussion of the differences between Lodash and Underscore, I recommend Ben McCormick's Underscore vs Lo-Dash[2].
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#3Welcome to JavaScript.
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#4If you find yourself annoyed by some aspects of Underscore, you might want to check out Lodash[1]. Lodash's API is a superset of Underscore, though you can create custom builds with only the parts you need. In general, Lodash performs better and has fewer bugs than Underscore. Unlike Underscore, Lodash has 100% test coverage. Also, Lodash has some handy things like _.cloneDeep(), and semantic versioning. That means y…
Completely agree. I always ask people why they're using underscore over lodash. Once they learn about lodash, they'll usually switch over right away.
There used to be a compatibility build of lodash, but I think it might've been deprecated by now... In any case, migrating would be fairly straightforward I think.
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#5If you find yourself annoyed by some aspects of Underscore, you might want to check out Lodash[1]. Lodash's API is a superset of Underscore, though you can create custom builds with only the parts you need. In general, Lodash performs better and has fewer bugs than Underscore. Unlike Underscore, Lodash has 100% test coverage. Also, Lodash has some handy things like _.cloneDeep(), and semantic versioning. That means y…
Lodash is also several times larger than Underscore. The point of Underscore is to keep it light.
And yes, you can pick and choose what modules you want. But you could do that with Mootools and it was released a decade ago. If you want a heavy framework with lots of modules, there are plenty to choose from.
Maybe if it offered a light version on the front page? The file linked from the front page is 372KB. By comparison, the file linked from Underscore's front page is 51KB.
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#6[deleted]
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#7If you find yourself annoyed by some aspects of Underscore, you might want to check out Lodash[1]. Lodash's API is a superset of Underscore, though you can create custom builds with only the parts you need. In general, Lodash performs better and has fewer bugs than Underscore. Unlike Underscore, Lodash has 100% test coverage. Also, Lodash has some handy things like _.cloneDeep(), and semantic versioning. That means y…
Lodash is also several times larger than Underscore. The point of Underscore is to keep it light. And yes, you can pick and choose what modules you want. But you could do that with Mootools and it was released a decade ago. If you want a heavy framework with lots of modules, there are plenty to choose from. Maybe if it offered a light version on the front page? The file linked from the front page is 372KB. By compari…
If you're using CommonJS you can do require('lodash/category/method'), and when it gets built on the frontend it'll only include the method and its dependencies. So if you're using only 5% of lodash, you'll only get that 5%.
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#8If you find yourself annoyed by some aspects of Underscore, you might want to check out Lodash[1]. Lodash's API is a superset of Underscore, though you can create custom builds with only the parts you need. In general, Lodash performs better and has fewer bugs than Underscore. Unlike Underscore, Lodash has 100% test coverage. Also, Lodash has some handy things like _.cloneDeep(), and semantic versioning. That means y…
Lodash is also several times larger than Underscore. The point of Underscore is to keep it light. And yes, you can pick and choose what modules you want. But you could do that with Mootools and it was released a decade ago. If you want a heavy framework with lots of modules, there are plenty to choose from. Maybe if it offered a light version on the front page? The file linked from the front page is 372KB. By compari…
A couple things:
- The actual difference (minified and gzipped) is 17.6 KB vs. 5.7KB.
- Lodash is written modularly so you can import only the methods you actually need.
- In order to "lose some weight" (as Jeremy Ashkenas called it), underscore dropped several methods that people really wanted (including other contributors).
- Also to cut down the size, several major pieces of functionality is not broken in older versions of IE
- Lodash provides a lot more functionality than underscore does, there's a lot of additional utilities including the ones that were dropped last minute by underscore.
There are a lot of other reasons to use lodash, but that was quickly becoming not a _couple_ of things.
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#9If you find yourself annoyed by some aspects of Underscore, you might want to check out Lodash[1]. Lodash's API is a superset of Underscore, though you can create custom builds with only the parts you need. In general, Lodash performs better and has fewer bugs than Underscore. Unlike Underscore, Lodash has 100% test coverage. Also, Lodash has some handy things like _.cloneDeep(), and semantic versioning. That means y…
Lodash is also several times larger than Underscore. The point of Underscore is to keep it light. And yes, you can pick and choose what modules you want. But you could do that with Mootools and it was released a decade ago. If you want a heavy framework with lots of modules, there are plenty to choose from. Maybe if it offered a light version on the front page? The file linked from the front page is 372KB. By compari…
That is not a fair comparison. Gzipped and minified underscore is 5.7kb. Lodash is 17.3kb. For the vast majority of sites that is a trivial difference in size.
Both of which are linked from the front page of their respective websites.
Re: “Discuss latest changes to master before releasing”
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lodash is also several times larger than Underscore. The point of Underscore is to keep it light. And yes, you can pick and choose what modules you want. But you could do that with Mootools and it was released a decade ago. If you want a heavy framework with lots of modules, there are plenty to choose from. Maybe if it offered a light version on the front page? The file linked from the front page is 372KB. By compari…
If you're using CommonJS you can do require('lodash/category/method'), and when it gets built on the frontend it'll only include the method and its dependencies. So if you're using only 5% of lodash, you'll only get that 5%.
Right. If on node, you can also use modules via NPM ( https://www.npmjs.com/browse/keyword/lodash-modularized ).
But as I said, this is common in many frameworks. Hell, you can even do with JQuery ( http://projects.jga.me/jquery-builder/ ). So having this ability doesn't make Lodash special.
This is not presented as the preferred method to use the framework on the project page either. You just get a link on the front page to the whole shebang. Probably because most developers just download the whole thing and stick it in.
What I was really hinting at was code complexity. Sometimes having something light and small that you can stick in there without worrying about anything is useful. Lodash can address that by having a light version linked off their front page, but they haven't done that.
On top of everything, Underscore is ribbing them on this very point. See http://underscorejs.org/ and bit down "(3x smaller than Lodash ;)" in bold. Seems like a really easy point to address.