Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
yaml 1.10.2 vs js-yaml 4.0.0
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
js-yaml vs yaml
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="module"> import jsyaml from 'https://cdn.skypack.dev/js-yaml@4.0.0' import YAML from 'https://cdn.skypack.dev/yaml@1.10.2' window.jsyaml = jsyaml window.YAML = YAML </script>
Script Preparation code:
var yamlString = 'key1: val1\nkey2: 7';
Tests:
js-yaml
var dummy = jsyaml.load(yamlString);
yaml
var dummy = YAML.parse(yamlString);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
js-yaml
yaml
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
8 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:142.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/142.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 142 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
js-yaml
405522.7 Ops/sec
yaml
61765.6 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares two YAML parsing libraries: `js-yaml` (version 4.0.0) and `YAML` (version 1.10.2). The test case measures the performance of each library when loading a predefined YAML string. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **js-yaml**: A JavaScript implementation of YAML parsing, specifically designed for Node.js. 2. **YAML**: A pure JavaScript implementation of YAML parsing, likely intended to be used in browser environments. **Pros and Cons** * **js-yaml**: + Pros: Optimized for performance, well-tested, and widely adopted. + Cons: Limited to Node.js environments; may not work seamlessly in browser environments due to differences in syntax and implementation details. * **YAML**: + Pros: Pure JavaScript implementation, potentially better suited for browser environments due to its simplicity and flexibility. + Cons: May be slower than `js-yaml` due to its lack of optimization for performance. **Library Purpose** In this benchmark, both libraries are used to load a predefined YAML string (`yamlString`) into variables. The main difference lies in the implementation details: * **js-yaml**: Uses its own parser and data structures to parse the YAML string. * **YAML**: Uses the built-in `parse()` method of the `YAML` class to parse the YAML string. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not employ any experimental features or syntaxes. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative YAML parsing libraries, consider: * **js2yaml**: A JavaScript library that converts JSON to YAML. * **yamllint**: A command-line tool that checks the formatting of YAML files.
Related benchmarks:
Lodash clone vs JSON parse stringify
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone 222222
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone deep array
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone 2asdasdas
Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone 2asdasdasrgdfg
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?