Benchmark: Lodash toString vs js String Constructor

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function native(values) {
   return values.map(String); 
}

function lodash(values) {
   return values.map(_.toString); 
}

Tests:

Native
native([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])
Lodash
lodash([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	598556.4 Ops/sec
Lodash	153726.7 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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using the native `String` constructor and using Lodash's `toString()` method to convert values to strings. The test creates an array with various types of values (numbers, strings, undefined, null, boolean, arrays, objects, and a function) and benchmarks how long it takes for each approach to map these values to strings.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native `String` constructor**: This method uses the native JavaScript `String` constructor to convert each value in the array to a string. The native implementation is typically optimized for performance.
2. **Lodash's `toString()` method**: This method uses Lodash, a popular utility library, to convert each value in the array to a string. Lodash provides a flexible and robust way to perform various string-related operations.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native `String` constructor**:
	+ Pros: Fastest execution time (typically ~10-20% faster than Lodash)
	+ Cons: Requires JavaScript version support (may not work in older browsers or environments)
* **Lodash's `toString()` method**:
	+ Pros: More flexible and feature-rich (e.g., supports custom string conversion functions, can handle complex data structures)
	+ Cons: Slower execution time (~10-20% slower than native implementation)

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses Lodash version 4. For those unfamiliar with Lodash, it's a popular utility library that provides various functional programming helpers, including string manipulation functions.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or modern JavaScript syntax (e.g., arrow functions, template literals).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

* **Built-in `String` methods**: Some browsers and engines have built-in string conversion methods (e.g., `toString()`, `valueOf()`), which might be faster than Lodash's implementation.
* **V8's `Stringify()` method**: V8, the JavaScript engine used by Google Chrome, has a custom `Stringify()` method that can convert objects to strings more efficiently. However, this is not widely supported outside of V8 and Chrome.

Overall, the benchmark provides a useful comparison between using the native `String` constructor and Lodash's `toString()` method for converting values to strings in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash toString vs js String Constructor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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