Benchmark: capitalize regExp vs join split

Script Preparation code:

var str="qlksjdqsd qsdqsd qsd qsd qsdqsdqsdq sd qsd qsd qsdqsdqsmdlkm qksd mqlskdmdpq lkjdlqksjdkjqshd kjqs hdq sdlkj qlskdj lkjlqkzjl kqjzel kjlkzjelkzj lkzjlkjzlkz lzk lkjlkj zkjh";

Tests:

split join
str.toLocaleLowerCase().split(' ').map(e => e[0].toLocaleUpperCase() + e.slice(1)).join(' ')
regex
str.replace(/\w\S*/g, (w) => (w.replace(/^\w/, (c) => c.toUpperCase())));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split join
regex

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to capitalizing the first letter of each word in a given string: using the `join` method with splitting and then taking the uppercase of each word, or using regular expressions (`RegExp`) to replace certain patterns.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Join Split**: This approach splits the input string into words (split by spaces) and then takes the uppercase of the first character of each word, followed by the rest of the word.
2. **RegExp Replace**: This approach uses a regular expression to match any sequence of word characters (`\w`) followed by one or more non-word characters (`\S*`). The replacement function takes the matched string, extracts the first character and converts it to uppercase using `toUpperCase()`, and then includes the rest of the original string.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Join Split**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, simple implementation.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating an array of words and then mapping over them.
2. **RegExp Replace**:
	* Pros: Can be faster since it only needs to execute a single replacement operation per iteration.
	* Cons: Requires more complex regular expression syntax, may be harder to understand for those unfamiliar with regex.

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches assume that the input string contains spaces as word separators. If other types of whitespace (e.g., tabs, newline characters) are present, this may need to be accounted for.
* The `RegExp` approach may be vulnerable to certain edge cases or Unicode properties if not properly crafted.

**Library Used in Test Case**

In the provided test case, no explicit library is used beyond JavaScript's built-in `String.prototype.split()`, `String.prototype.join()`, and `String.prototype.toUpperCase()` methods. However, some browsers (e.g., Firefox) may use internal libraries or engines that implement these standard methods.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark cases utilizes any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is considered standard for a long time in the language.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, some potential options could include:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.map()` and `String.prototype.substring()`**: This approach would involve mapping over an array of word substrings (e.g., `[str.substr(0, 1), str.substr(1)]`) and then joining them back together with spaces.
2. **Using a more complex regular expression**: Instead of using the simple `\w\S*` pattern, you could try something like `/\b\w*\S+\b/g`, which would match whole words followed by any non-word characters, but be more specific in its selection criteria.

However, it's worth noting that these alternatives may not offer significant performance improvements over the existing approaches and may introduce additional complexity.

Related benchmarks:

capitalize regExp vs join split (version: 0)

capitalize regExp vs join split

Comparing performance of: split join vs regex

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split join

regex

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):