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
Jump 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
Test name
Executions per second
lodash
6365613.0 Ops/sec
javascript
818580800.0 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
Number vs + vs parseFloat 235
lodash isnubmer vs typeof
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?