Benchmark: format string - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.1.1.slim.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function format1(source, ...args) {
    $.each(args, function(i, n) {
        source = source.replace(new RegExp("\\{" + i + "\\}", "g"), n);
    });

    return source;
}

function format2(source, ...args) {
    return source.replace(/{(\d+)}/g, function(match, i) {
        return args[i] || match;
    });
};

var template = "{0} is dead, but {1} is alive! {0} {2} {1} {3} {4}";

Tests:

format1
format1(template, 'ASP', 'ASP.NET', 'foo', 'bar');
format2
format2(template, 'ASP', 'ASP.NET', 'foo', 'bar');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
format1
format2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons of each approach, library usage, special JS features or syntax (if any), and other alternatives.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two string formatting functions: `format1` and `format2`. The benchmark script template is defined as a multiline string with placeholders (`{0}`, `{1}`, etc.) that will be replaced with actual values using the provided formatting functions.

**Script Preparation Code**

The preparation code defines two formatting functions:

1. `format1(source, ...args)`: This function iterates over the `args` array and uses `$.each()` to replace each placeholder in the `source` string with the corresponding value from the `args` array.
2. `format2(source, ...args)`: This function uses a regular expression to replace all occurrences of `{n}` placeholders with the actual values from the `args` array.

**Html Preparation Code**

The benchmark includes an external jQuery library for dynamic HTML loading.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `format1(template, 'ASP', 'ASP.NET', 'foo', 'bar')`
2. `format2(template, 'ASP', 'ASP.NET', 'foo', 'bar')`

These test cases execute the corresponding formatting functions with different sets of placeholders and values.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance (measured in executions per second) of the two string formatting functions under identical input conditions:

* Same template string (`template`)
* Same set of placeholder values (`'ASP'`, `'ASP.NET'`, `'foo'`, `'bar'`)
* Same device platform and operating system (Windows 7, Chrome 57)

**Pros/Cons of Each Approach**

1. `format1`:
	* Pros: More explicit and flexible approach, allows for more control over the formatting process.
	* Cons: Requires iterating over the `args` array, which can be slower than a regex-based approach.
2. `format2`:
	* Pros: Faster and more concise, using regular expressions to replace placeholders.
	* Cons: Less explicit and flexible than `format1`, relies on specific syntax for placeholder replacement.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark includes an external jQuery library (`$.each()`), which is not strictly necessary for the formatting functions themselves but is used in the preparation code to load the HTML template dynamically.

**Special JS Features or Syntax (if any)**

This benchmark uses a special syntax for string placeholders (`{n}`) and does not require any specific JavaScript features beyond ES5 compatibility.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare alternative formatting functions, some possible alternatives could include:

* Using `String.prototype.replace()` instead of regular expressions
* Implementing the formatting functions using different programming paradigms (e.g., functional programming)
* Comparing performance with other string formatting libraries or frameworks

Keep in mind that this benchmark is specifically designed to test the performance of two simple string formatting functions, and alternatives might not be as relevant or useful for broader use cases.

Related benchmarks:

format string (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: format1 vs format2

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

format1

format2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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