Benchmark: classnames vs classcat 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/classnames/2.2.6/index.min.js'></script>
<script type="module">
    import classcat from "https://unpkg.com/classcat?module"
    window.classcat = classcat
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var logo = 'logo'
var collapsed = true

Tests:

classcat
const result = window.classcat({ [logo]: true, collapsed })
classnames
const result = window.classNames(logo, { collapsed })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
classcat
classnames

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
classcat	42456528.0 Ops/sec
classnames	16309095.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Comparison: Classnames vs Classcat**

The benchmark is comparing two JavaScript libraries:

1. **Classnames**: A lightweight library for conditionally joining class names. Its purpose is to simplify CSS class manipulation by providing a concise way to apply classes based on conditional logic.
2. **Classcat**: Another library that offers similar functionality to Classnames.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

* Using `classcat` with its built-in syntax for conditionally joining class names (`{ [logo]: true, collapsed }`)
* Using `classnames` with its syntax for conditionally joining class names (`logo`, `{ collapsed }`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Classcat:**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise syntax using the bracket notation (`[logo]`) to apply classes.
		+ Easy to read and write, making it a good choice for developers familiar with the library's API.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more code to achieve the same result as Classnames.
2. **Classnames:**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible syntax that allows for separate conditions (`logo` and `collapsed`) to be applied independently.
		+ Can be easier to debug due to its explicit nature.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose syntax, which might make it harder to read and write.

**Library Considerations:**

* **Classcat:** The library is designed specifically for conditionally joining class names. Its API is simple and easy to understand, making it a great choice for developers who want a lightweight solution.
* **Classnames:** This library offers more flexibility than Classcat but requires more code to achieve the same result.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's focused on comparing two libraries and their approaches to conditionally joining class names.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative solutions, you can consider:

* **CSS Classes:** Using CSS classes directly instead of a JavaScript library.
* **Lodash:** A popular utility library that includes methods for working with objects, including `join()` which can be used to conditionally join class names.

Keep in mind that while these alternatives exist, using a dedicated library like Classnames or Classcat provides a more concise and readable way to work with class names in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

classnames vs classcat 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: classcat vs classnames

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

classcat

classnames

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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