Use individual lodash functions

[sotojuan]

May help with #862.

I replaced lodash with individual packages for each function. This brought down the size by ~4mb. Not too bad!

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 98.83% when pulling 469a8b9 on sotojuan:smaller-lodash into e65ad72 on cheeriojs:master.

[solomon-gumball]

👍 Another consequence of this change is that lodash no longer pollutes the global namespace. I am actually using the react testing library 'enzyme' and it's dependency on 'cheerio' is frustrating for that reason (currently overriding underscore)

Would like to see this change merged! :)

[sotojuan]

Ping @fb55 @jugglinmike :-)

[fb55]

IMHO keeping the _ variable and creating an object inside each file would be a bit more readable.

[sotojuan]

Hm, I can see how that would be ideal. I don't mind doing that—what does @jugglinmike think?

[sotojuan]

Sorry for the late PR—been busy. I think I did what you meant, let me know.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 98.83% when pulling 5020288 on sotojuan:smaller-lodash into e65ad72 on cheeriojs:master.

[fb55]

Awesome, thanks a lot :)

[ianstormtaylor]

It seems like this change should be done using the lodash/bind syntax that 4.0 supports (which will cause an even greater reduction in size when using cheerio with other dependencies) instead of the lodash.bind syntax which requires pegging a module for each function.

[sotojuan]

@ianstormtaylor if @fb55 agrees I don't mind submitting a PR for that. So it'd just be installing lodash fully again but using var bind = require('lodash/bind')? I'll have to test it later! Thanks.

[ianstormtaylor]

@sotojuan yup, exactly like that! It should mean that other deps using lodash will also share the deps, even if they require the whole module.

[sotojuan]

👍 We'll see what the repo owners think and I'll implement as needed.

[billyjanitsch]

@sotojuan @ianstormtaylor I implemented the change you suggested in #913.