Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash parseint vs parseInt
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs javascript
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var str = "123456"
Tests:
lodash
_.parseInt(str);
javascript
parseInt(str);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
javascript
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; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 133 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=571201" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
javascript
818.6M/s
lodash
6.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
javascript
818,580,800 Ops/sec
lodash
6,365,613 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the benchmark explanation in a way that's easy to understand for software engineers of all levels. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, which compares the performance of two approaches: using the built-in `parseInt()` function and using the `_.parseInt()` function from the Lodash library. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **JavaScript's `parseInt()`**: This is the built-in function in JavaScript that converts a string to an integer. 2. **Lodash's `_.parseInt()`**: This is a utility function from the popular Lodash library, which provides various functions for common tasks. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: * **JavaScript's `parseInt()`**: + Pros: Lightweight, no additional library dependency. + Cons: May not work as expected with edge cases (e.g., null or undefined input). * **Lodash's `_.parseInt()`**: + Pros: Robust handling of edge cases, support for decimal numbers. + Cons: Requires an additional library dependency. **Other Considerations** When choosing between these approaches, consider the specific requirements of your project: * If you need a lightweight solution with minimal dependencies, JavaScript's `parseInt()` might be sufficient. * If you require robust handling of edge cases and support for decimal numbers, Lodash's `_.parseInt()` is a better choice. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functions for common tasks. In this benchmark, the `_.parseInt()` function is used to compare with the built-in `parseInt()` function from JavaScript. **Special JS Features or Syntax** This benchmark doesn't rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax. The code is straightforward and relies solely on the two functions being compared. **Alternative Approaches** Other alternatives for comparing integer parsing performance might include: * Using a different library, such as Moment.js or Mathjs. * Implementing a custom integer parser function. * Comparing multiple other libraries or approaches that provide similar functionality (e.g., `Number.parseInt()` from ECMAScript 2015). Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific requirements and project constraints.
Related benchmarks
lodash toInteger vs parseInt
Number vs Number.parseInt vs parseInt
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?