Benchmark: _.toUpper() vs. String.toUpperCase()

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = "somestring";

Tests:

LoDash
console.log(_.toUpper(str));
Native
console.log(str.toUpperCase());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
LoDash
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
LoDash	215618.6 Ops/sec
Native	215280.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The test compares the performance of two approaches to convert a string to uppercase: `_.toUpper()` (a function from the Lodash library) and `String.toUpperCase()`. The latter is the built-in method for converting strings to uppercase in JavaScript.

**Options compared:**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Lodash (.toUpper())**: A popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions, including string manipulation methods like `toUpper()`.
2. **Native (String.toUpperCase())**: The built-in method for converting strings to uppercase in JavaScript.

**Pros and cons:**

* **Lodash (.toUpper())**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to use and more intuitive than the native method, especially for developers who are not familiar with the native API.
		- Often faster due to optimization by the Lodash team.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires including an additional library in the test environment, which may add overhead.
* **Native (String.toUpperCase())**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional libraries or dependencies required, making it a more straightforward option for testing.
		- Typically faster since it's implemented in native code and doesn't require a library to execute.
	+ Cons:
		- May be less intuitive or familiar to developers who are not used to the native API.

**Other considerations:**

* **Library:** The Lodash library is widely used and provides many useful functions for common tasks, including string manipulation. However, it also introduces additional overhead due to its execution time.
* **Native syntax:** The built-in `String.toUpperCase()` method uses a more concise syntax than the Lodash version (.toUpper()). If the test is concerned with performance or readability, this might be an important consideration.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. Both options use standard JavaScript syntax and do not rely on any special features or syntax that would impact their performance or execution.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to compare the performance of other string conversion methods, some alternatives could be:

* Using a different library (e.g., jQuery's `.toUpperCase()` method)
* Implementing a custom string conversion function
* Comparing the performance of other built-in JavaScript methods (e.g., `String.prototype.toUpperCase()`, `String.prototype.toUppercase()`, or ` Intl.Collator().resolvedOptions().locale('en').toLocaleUpperCase()`)

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark setup and test cases.

Related benchmarks:

_.toUpper() vs. String.toUpperCase() (version: 0)

_.toUpper() vs. String.toUpperCase()

Comparing performance of: LoDash vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

LoDash

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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