Benchmark: Test typeof vs lodash

Script Preparation code:

var myobject = {
  element: 'this is a string',
};

Tests:

typeof
typeof myobject.element;
lodash
_.isString(myobject.element);
lodash with get
_.isString(_.get(myobject, 'element', undefined));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
typeof
lodash
lodash with get

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 JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is comparing two ways to check if a value is a string: using the native `typeof` operator versus the `_.isString()` method from the Lodash library.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script preparation code defines an object `myobject` with a property `element`, which contains a string value `"this is a string"`.

**Html Preparation Code**
Since there is no HTML preparation code, we can assume that this benchmark is focused solely on JavaScript performance comparison.

**Individual Test Cases**

1. **`typeof myobject.element;`**: This test case uses the native `typeof` operator to check if `myobject.element` is a string.
	* Purpose: To measure the execution time of the `typeof` operator in JavaScript.
	* Library: None
2. **`_.isString(myobject.element);`**: This test case uses the Lodash library's `_.isString()` method to check if `myobject.element` is a string.
	* Purpose: To measure the execution time of the `_isString()` method from the Lodash library.
3. **`_.isString(_.get(myobject, 'element', undefined));`**: This test case uses the Lodash library's `_.get()` method to retrieve the value of `myobject.element`, and then passes it to the `_isString()` method.
	* Purpose: To measure the execution time of the `_get()` method from the Lodash library when used with `_isString()`.
	* Pros: Using `_get()` can provide a more robust way of handling missing values, as it allows for specifying a default value (in this case, `undefined`) if the key is not present.
	* Cons: However, in this specific benchmark, using `_get()` might introduce unnecessary overhead due to the additional method call.

**Benchmark Results**
The latest benchmark results show three test cases with varying execution times:

1. **`typeof`**: 17,775,730 executions per second (with an average value of 17775730).
2. **`_.isString()`**: 6,187,867 executions per second (with an average value of 6187867.5).
3. **`_.isString(_.get(myobject, 'element', undefined))`**: 2,401,653 executions per second (with an average value of 2401653.5).

**Other Considerations**

* Using native operators like `typeof` tends to be faster than using libraries like Lodash, as they are implemented in C++ and optimized for performance.
* However, libraries like Lodash provide additional features, such as handling missing values or providing a more flexible API.

**Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark with alternative approaches:

1. Instead of `typeof`, you could use the `instanceof` operator or a custom implementation using `TypeOf()`.
2. For the Lodash approach, you could use other utility functions from the library, such as `_isNumber()` or `_isArray()`, depending on your specific requirements.
3. You could also consider using other libraries that provide similar functionality to Lodash, such as Moment.js for date-related functions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce trade-offs between performance, code readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

Test typeof vs lodash (version: 0)

Comparing native typeof versus safer lodash

Comparing performance of: typeof vs lodash vs lodash with get

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

typeof

lodash

lodash with get

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):