Revisited nativeoverutil.md

sections/performance/nativeoverutil.md

@@ -5,15 +5,8 @@
 
 ### One Paragraph Explainer
 
-Sometimes, using native methods is better than requiring `lodash` or `underscore` because it **will not lead in a performance boost** and use more space than necessary.
+Sometimes, using native methods is better than requiring `lodash` or `underscore` because it will not lead in a performance boost and use more space than necessary.
-The performance using native methods result in an overall ~50% gain which includes the following methods:
+The performance using native methods result in an [overall ~50% gain](https://github.com/Berkmann18/NativeVsUtils/blob/master/analysis.xlsx) which includes the following methods: `Array.concat`, `Array.fill`, `Array.filter`, `Array.map`, `(Array|String).indexOf`, `Object.find`, ...
- - `Array.concat`
- - `Array.fill`
- - `Array.filter`
- - `Array.map`
- - `(Array|String).indexOf`
- - `Object.find`
- - ...
 
 
 <!-- comp here: https://gist.github.com/Berkmann18/3a99f308d58535ab0719ac8fc3c3b8bb-->
@@ -21,7 +14,7 @@ The performance using native methods result in an overall ~50% gain which includ
 <br/><br/>
 
 ### Example: benchmark comparison - Lodash vs V8 (Native)
-The graph below shows the mean of the benchmarks for a variety of Lodash methods, this shows that Lodash methods take on average 146.23% more time to complete the same tasks as V8 methods.
+The graph below shows the [mean of the benchmarks for a variety of Lodash methods](https://github.com/Berkmann18/NativeVsUtils/blob/master/nativeVsLodash.ods), this shows that Lodash methods take on average 146.23% more time to complete the same tasks as V8 methods.
 
 ![meanDiag](../../assets/images/sampleMeanDiag.png)
 
@@ -47,29 +40,30 @@ Which returns this:
 
 You can find a bigger list of benchmarks [here](https://github.com/Berkmann18/NativeVsUtils/blob/master/index.txt) or alternatively [run this](https://github.com/Berkmann18/NativeVsUtils/blob/master/index.js) which would show the same but with colours.
 
-### "You don't (may not) need Lodash/Underscore"
+### Blog Quote: "You don't (may not) need Lodash/Underscore"
 
 From the [repo on this matter which focuses on Lodash and Underscore](https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore).
 
  > Lodash and Underscore are great modern JavaScript utility libraries, and they are widely used by Front-end developers. However, when you are targeting modern browsers, you may find out that there are many methods which are already supported natively thanks to ECMAScript5 [ES5] and ECMAScript2015 [ES6]. If you want your project to require fewer dependencies, and you know your target browser clearly, then you may not need Lodash/Underscore.
 
- There's also an [ESLint plugin](https://www.npmjs.com/package/eslint-plugin-you-dont-need-lodash-underscore) which detects where you're using libraries but don't need to.
+### Example: Linting for non-native methods usage
-
+There's an [ESLint plugin](https://www.npmjs.com/package/eslint-plugin-you-dont-need-lodash-underscore) which detects where you're using libraries but don't need to by warning you with suggestions (cf. example below).<br>
-Here's an example of that plugin in use:
+The way you set it up is by adding the `eslint-plugin-you-dont-need-lodash-underscore` plugin to your ESLint configuration file:
-Consider a file called _lodashLove.js_ shown below
+```json
-```js
+{
-const _ = require('lodash');
+  "extends": [
-
+    "plugin:you-dont-need-lodash-underscore/compatible"
-let arr = [0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16];
+  ]
-
+}
-console.log(_.map(arr, x => `d${x}`));
-
-if (_.includes(arr, 0)) console.log('0 found');
-
-console.log('compacted:', _.compact(arr));
 ```
 
 ### Example: detecting non-v8 util usage using a linter
+Consider the file below:
+```js
+const _ = require('lodash');
+// ESLint will flag the line above with a suggestion
+console.log(_.map([0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16], x => `d${x}`));
+```
 Here's what ESLint would output when using the YDNLU plugin.
 ![output](../../assets/images/ydnlu.png)