I suppose lodash and others aim for a similar purpose, but clearly left-pad-gate has shown us that they're not quite complete enough.
It's almost ironic really, that js has the worst standard library situation of any popular language yet it would benefit the most from having a good one since it would save everyone bandwidth and page load time.
Maybe someone can write an amazing replacement stdlib and we can all agree to include it from the same CDN so it'll be cached on every browser in the world...
EDIT: I see from other comments that lodash functions can be required individually which I hadn't thought about. But the point still stands, every function that you use in a big project that could have been in the standard library is more to download.
Unfortunately, libs that provide function chaining via dynamically extwnding a prototype can't be optimized by tree shaking.
The future :: function bind operator should provide a tree shaker friendly alternative.
A main issue with the current system is that you're pulling in micro dependencies from a variety of different sources, instead of a few potentially highly reputable sources (fairly or not, I'd feel more comfortable with dependencies from the lodash maintainer, than from 50 different people). One solution obviously is a better standard library, but often to get there, the process is for devs to create common libraries - which over time are (partially) absorbed in language standards.
I vote for lodash to become the new STL. It's even faster than native JS.
You'll need both to happen - and that's the benefit of this controversy.
Even so, I think the micro-library dogma might have gone too extreme, without many programmers realizing the cost it injected - and this controversy will likely also help with changing some developers dependency philosophy.
More speculatively, I'll be interested to see if any of this leads to changes in the ECMAScript standard discussions in future years.