Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
JS Beautifier vs lodash: What are the differences?
Developers describe JS Beautifier as "Beautify, unpack or deobfuscate JavaScript and HTML, make JSON/JSONP readable, etc". This little beautifier will reformat and reindent bookmarklets, ugly JavaScript, unpack scripts packed by Dean Edward’s popular packer, as well as deobfuscate scripts processed by javascriptobfuscator.com. On the other hand, lodash is detailed as "A modern JavaScript utility library delivering modularity, performance & extras". A JavaScript utility library delivering consistency, modularity, performance, & extras.
JS Beautifier and lodash can be categorized as "Javascript Utilities & Libraries" tools.
JS Beautifier and lodash are both open source tools. lodash with 40K GitHub stars and 4.16K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than JS Beautifier with 6.29K GitHub stars and 1.1K GitHub forks.
Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) provides standard data objects in JSON format for the healthcare industry. Since JSON objects are hierarchical and tree-like, we had a need to defensively 'pluck' fields from our JSON objects and do lots of mapping. We tried jQuery and Underscore and a few other technologies like FHIRPath; but Lodash has been the most well supported, works in the most contexts, has the cleanest syntax, etc. We particularly like the ES6 version of Lodash, where we can import the method names directly, without resorting to * or _ syntax. We got hooked on the 'get' function to defensively pluck fields from objects without crashing our user interface, and have found countless uses for the other lodash functions throughout our apps.
Lodash is great for developing and optimizing algorithms.
Pros of JS Beautifier
Pros of Lodash
- Better than Underscore2
- Simple1
- Better that Underscore0
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of JS Beautifier
Cons of Lodash
- It reduce the performance1
