Benchmark: Compare lodash isEmpty and length comparison on strings

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

// empty string
window.foo1 = '';

// filled string
window.foo2 = 'Comparing performance of: isEmpty empty strings vs length empty strings isEmpty filled string vs length filled string';

Tests:

isEmpty empty string
_.isEmpty(window.foo1);
length empty string
window.foo1.length === 0;
isEmpty filled string
_.isEmpty(window.foo2);
length filled string
window.foo2.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
isEmpty empty string
length empty string
isEmpty filled string
length filled string

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarking.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test created on MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of two approaches to check if a string is empty: using the `isEmpty` function from the Lodash library and comparing the length of the string to 0.

There are four individual test cases:

1. Checking if an empty string (`''`) is empty using `_.isEmpty(window.foo1)`.
2. Comparing the length of an empty string (`''`) to 0.
3. Checking if a filled string (`'...'`) is empty using `_.isEmpty(window.foo2)`.
4. Comparing the length of a filled string (`'...'`) to 0.

**Options compared**

The test compares two approaches:

1. Using the `isEmpty` function from Lodash (`_.isEmpty(window.foo1)` and `_.isEmpty(window.foo2)`).
2. Comparing the length of the string to 0 (`window.foo1.length === 0` and `window.foo2.length === 0`).

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* Using `_.isEmpty(window.foo1)`:
	+ Pros: concise and expressive, as it directly checks if the value is empty.
	+ Cons: slower due to the function call overhead.
* Comparing the length to 0 (`window.foo1.length === 0`):
	+ Pros: faster, as it's a simple arithmetic operation.
	+ Cons: less readable, as it requires understanding of string lengths.

**Lodash library and its purpose**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including:

* Array manipulation
* String manipulation (e.g., `isEmpty`, `isEmptyString`)
* Object manipulation
* Function manipulation

In this test, the `_.isEmpty` function is used to check if a value is empty.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of Lodash and the `=== 0` comparison operator is a common pattern in JavaScript development.

**Other alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash, you can implement your own implementation for checking if a value is empty using the `length` property. For example:
```javascript
function isEmpty(value) {
  return value.length === 0;
}
```
Alternatively, you can use other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Compare lodash isEmpty and length comparison on strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: isEmpty empty strings vs length empty strings isEmpty filled string vs length filled string

Comparing performance of: isEmpty empty string vs length empty string vs isEmpty filled string vs length filled string

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

isEmpty empty string

length empty string

isEmpty filled string

length filled string

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):