Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 9496ab4 on Zirro:lodash-packages into 77e4f18 on request:master.

Thanks a lot @Zirro !

Quick question: Is it safe to replace _.isArray() with Array.isArray() in old environments like node.js v0.10?

Yes, that should be okay. Array.isArray() was specified in ES5, so it’s been supported for quite a while. Even lodash uses it in their code :-)

hey all, currently fighting to shave down the size of a node.js docker image and this would help a bit.. any update on this PR?

What's the latest on this? Could we please get this merged in?

What is the hold up on merging this? Why was #14 merged instead of this one?

Note that lodash intends to not support the per-method packages in lodash v5 https://github.com/lodash/lodash/wiki/Roadmap

hey just checking in on this, based on the latest info from @realityking are you still planning on merging this in?

If you are using a package bundler like Webpack then you will be able to reduce the code size even more than if this library would use the per method packages. Splitting the lodash packages apart actually required some code duplicates. Those don’t exist in the main lodash library. Thus the main lodash plus using a package bundler is the way to go. I hope that works for you!

That doesn't really work no.

I'm trying to reduce the size of our build artifacts we have for a few node servers. We don't want to run webpack on the servers for many reasons. But doing it because a dependency of a dependency chooses to drag in the whole of lodash is a bit weird. This is the only package still having a full lodash import.

Just a note that Lodash discourages the use of the per method packages and is planing on removing them in the next major.
https://lodash.com/per-method-packages

Yeah sure. The best thing is to stop using lodash for super basic stuff as this project is doing :)

Indeed at work we've removed all of lodash, with our own small specialized helpers for stuff like debounce etc that does what's needed. Most other stuff we've just rewritten to regular js.

Now with optional chaining obj?.prop there won't be any need to use a helper for nice "get"-ing even :)