Benchmark: js-yaml vs yaml-js

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/js-yaml/3.12.0/js-yaml.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/yamljs/0.3.0/yaml.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var yamlString = 'key1: val1\nkey2: 7';

Tests:

yaml-js
var dummy = YAML.parse(yamlString);
js-yaml
var dummy = jsyaml.safeLoad(yamlString);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
yaml-js
js-yaml

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
yaml-js	92997.8 Ops/sec
js-yaml	1090573.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two JavaScript libraries, js-yaml and yaml-js, which are used to parse YAML (YAML Ain't Markup Language) strings. The test case creates a YAML string, loads it using each library, and measures the execution time.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **js-yaml**: A JavaScript implementation of the YAML specification, providing a safe way to parse YAML data.
2. **yaml-js**: A JavaScript wrapper around the pyyaml library (originally from Python), which also parses YAML data but with some differences in behavior.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **js-yaml**:
	+ Pros:
		- Strictly adheres to the YAML specification, ensuring consistency across different versions.
		- Provides a safe way to parse YAML data, reducing the risk of security vulnerabilities.
	+ Cons:
		- Might be slower due to the additional overhead of implementing the full YAML specification.
* **yaml-js**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time compared to js-yaml, likely due to optimized implementation and caching mechanisms.
		- Provides a more modern and streamlined parsing experience.
	+ Cons:
		- Might not be as strict in its adherence to the YAML specification, which could lead to inconsistencies across different versions.

**Library considerations:**

* **js-yaml**: A pure JavaScript implementation of the YAML specification. It's maintained by Ben Everard and is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive implementations available.
* **yaml-js**: A JavaScript wrapper around the pyyaml library. While it provides a good parsing experience, its behavior might differ from the original Python version.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark, but keep in mind that other benchmarks might involve testing specific JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or ES6+ syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative YAML parsers in JavaScript, some options include:

* **yaml-loader**: A Node.js module that loads YAML files and provides a simple API.
* **yaml2json**: A lightweight YAML parser that converts YAML data to JSON.
* **yaml-js-alien**: Another JavaScript wrapper around the pyyaml library, with slightly different behavior compared to yaml-js.

In summary, this benchmark compares two popular JavaScript libraries for parsing YAML strings: js-yaml and yaml-js. While both provide good results, js-yaml is a more strict implementation that ensures consistency across different versions, while yaml-js offers faster execution times at the cost of some flexibility in its adherence to the YAML specification.

Related benchmarks:

js-yaml vs yaml-js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: yaml-js vs js-yaml

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

yaml-js

js-yaml

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):