Benchmark: replaceAll vs. adding characters up

Script Preparation code:

const illegalChars = new Map
illegalChars.set('\\', '\\\\')
illegalChars.set('`', '\\`')
illegalChars.set('$', '\\$')

function escapeTaggedTemplate1(s) {
  if (!s) return '``'

  let res = ''
  for (let i = 0, l = s.length; i < l; ++i) {
    const c = s.charAt(i)
    res += illegalChars.get(c) || c
  }
  return `\`${res}\``;
}

function escapeTaggedTemplate2(source) {
  return source
    .replaceAll('\\', '\\\\')
    .replaceAll('`', '\\`')
    .replaceAll('$', '\\$');
}

Tests:

Adding characters up
escapeTaggedTemplate1('') escapeTaggedTemplate1('this is a string which does not need to be escaped') escapeTaggedTemplate1('\\this\\ `string` `has to` $be$ \\escaped\\ `at` \\the\\ $end$')
Replacing special characters
escapeTaggedTemplate2('') escapeTaggedTemplate2('this is a string which does not need to be escaped') escapeTaggedTemplate2('\\this\\ `string` `has to` $be$ \\escaped\\ `at` \\the\\ $end$')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Adding characters up
Replacing special characters

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to escape strings in tagged template literals:

1. `escapeTaggedTemplate1`: A manual approach that iterates over each character of the string, replacing special characters (\\`, \`, ``) with their escaped versions.
2. `escapeTaggedTemplate2`: A built-in method for replacing special characters in strings.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

A) Manual approach (`escapeTaggedTemplate1`): Iterates over each character of the string, manually replacing special characters.
B) Built-in method (`escapeTaggedTemplate2`): Uses a built-in method to replace special characters in the string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Manual Approach (`escapeTaggedTemplate1`)**

Pros:

* Can be optimized for specific use cases or edge cases where the built-in method might not work.
* Allows for fine-grained control over the escaping process.

Cons:

* More verbose and error-prone due to manual iteration and replacement.
* May have performance overhead due to the extra steps involved.

**Built-in Method (`escapeTaggedTemplate2`)**

Pros:

* Faster execution, as it relies on optimized built-in methods.
* Less prone to errors, as the method is designed to handle a wide range of inputs.

Cons:

* Limited control over the escaping process, as the method uses heuristics to determine which characters need to be escaped.
* May not work correctly for certain edge cases or use cases where manual replacement is required.

**Library and Special Features**

Neither `escapeTaggedTemplate1` nor `escapeTaggedTemplate2` uses any external libraries. However, tagged template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which allows for more expressive string interpolation.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code defines two functions:

* `escapeTaggedTemplate1`: A manual function that takes a string as input and returns the escaped version.
* `escapeTaggedTemplate2`: A built-in method that replaces special characters in the input string.

The `Script Preparation Code` includes the definition of these functions, as well as some example usage to demonstrate how they can be used.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. "Adding characters up": Tests both functions with a simple string containing no special characters.
2. "Replacing special characters": Tests both functions with a more complex string containing special characters that need to be escaped (e.g., \\, \`, ``).

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows the execution times for both test cases on Safari 15, with the built-in method (`escapeTaggedTemplate2`) being significantly faster.

Other Alternatives

If you're looking for alternative approaches or optimizations, consider the following:

* Using a library like `lodash` to provide a more robust and efficient string escaping function.
* Optimizing the manual approach by using techniques like caching or memoization to reduce the overhead of repeated iterations.
* Experimenting with different built-in methods or custom implementations that might offer better performance for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

replaceAll vs. adding characters up (version: 0)

Compares replaceAll with adding characters up one by one in tagged template escaping.

Comparing performance of: Adding characters up vs Replacing special characters

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Adding characters up

Replacing special characters

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):