Benchmark: Classnames@2.3.1 vs clsx@1.1.1

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/classnames/2.3.1/index.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://unpkg.com/clsx@1.1.1/dist/clsx.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'style';
var obj = {
 	 'style-2': true,
  	 'style-3': false,
 	 'style-4': true,
}
var arr = ['style-5', 'style-6']

Tests:

classNames
let result = window.classNames(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')
clsx
let result = window.clsx(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
classNames
clsx

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 microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net provides a comparison benchmark between two JavaScript libraries: Classnames and clsx (short for Class Names, a portmanteau of CSS class names). The test aims to determine which library performs better in terms of execution speed.

The benchmark tests the performance of these libraries when used with specific inputs:

* `str`: a string variable set to `'style'`.
* `obj`: an object with three properties: `'style-2'`, `'style-3'`, and `'style-4',` each with values that depend on the library being tested.
* `arr`: an array containing two strings, `'style-5'` and `'style-6'`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of Classnames (version 2.3.1) and clsx (version 1.1.1). Both libraries have different approaches to handle CSS class names:

* **Classnames**: This library provides a `classNames()` function that takes multiple arguments, including strings, objects, and arrays. It uses a recursive approach to apply the class names to the input object.
* **clsx**: This library provides a `clsx()` function that also takes multiple arguments, including strings, objects, and arrays. However, it uses a different approach, known as "memoization," which caches the results of expensive function calls.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Classnames**:
	+ Pros: Recursive approach can handle complex class name chains.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to recursive function calls.
* **clsx**:
	+ Pros: Memoization can improve performance by caching results.
	+ Cons: May not handle complex class name chains as well.

**Library and its purpose**

The two libraries being compared are:

* **Classnames**: A JavaScript library for working with CSS class names. It provides a `classNames()` function that takes multiple arguments, including strings, objects, and arrays.
* **clsx**: A JavaScript portmanteau of Class Names (CSS class names) that also provides a `clsx()` function. Its primary purpose is to improve performance by using memoization.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark does not specifically test any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, it's worth noting that the use of ES6+ features like arrow functions and template literals may have an impact on the performance of these libraries.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other options for working with CSS class names in JavaScript, consider the following:

* **Lodash**: A popular utility library that includes a `classNames()` function.
* **Svelte's `style` function**: A lightweight library that provides a `style` function for working with CSS class names.

Keep in mind that these libraries may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to Classnames and clsx.

Related benchmarks:

Classnames@2.3.1 vs clsx@1.1.1 (version: 0)

Compare Classnames vs clsx

Comparing performance of: classNames vs clsx

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

classNames

clsx

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):