Why does RuboCop suggest replacing .times.map with Array.new?

The latter is more performant; here is an explanation: Pull request where this cop was added

It checks for calls like this:

9.times.map { |i| f(i) }
9.times.collect(&foo)

and suggests using this instead:

Array.new(9) { |i| f(i) }
Array.new(9, &foo)

The new code has approximately the same size, but uses fewer method
calls, consumes less memory, works a tiny bit faster and in my opinion
is more readable.

I’ve seen many occurrences of times.{map,collect} in different
well-known projects: Rails, GitLab, Rubocop and several closed-source
apps.

Benchmarks:

Benchmark.ips do |x|
  x.report('times.map') { 5.times.map{} }
  x.report('Array.new') { Array.new(5){} }
  x.compare!
end
__END__
Calculating -------------------------------------
           times.map    21.188k i/100ms
           Array.new    30.449k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
           times.map    311.613k (± 3.5%) i/s -      1.568M
           Array.new    590.374k (± 1.2%) i/s -      2.954M

Comparison:
           Array.new:   590373.6 i/s
           times.map:   311612.8 i/s - 1.89x slower

I’m not sure now that Lint is the correct namespace for the cop. Let
me know if I should move it to Performance.

Also I didn’t implement autocorrection because it can potentially
break existing code, e.g. if someone has Fixnum#times method redefined
to do something fancy. Applying autocorrection would break their code.