Benchmark: js-yaml vs JSON.parse

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/js-yaml/4.1.0/js-yaml.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var jsonString = '{"key1": "val1", "key2": 7}';
var yamlString = 'key1: val1\nkey2: 7';

Tests:

JSON.parse
var dummy = JSON.parse(jsonString);
js-yaml
var dummy = jsyaml.load(yamlString);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.parse
js-yaml

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; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JSON.parse	9413490.0 Ops/sec
js-yaml	716778.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two JavaScript libraries: `JSON.parse` (from the built-in JavaScript library) and `js-yaml`. The test case measures the time it takes to parse a JSON string using both methods.

The benchmark compares the execution speed of parsing a JSON string (`jsonString`) with the execution speed of parsing a YAML string (`yamlString`) using these two libraries.

**Options compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. `JSON.parse` (built-in JavaScript library)
2. `js-yaml` (a separate JavaScript library for YAML parsing)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Built-in `JSON.parse`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fastest execution time, as it's a built-in function.
		+ Simple to use and understand.
	* Cons:
		+ Not specifically designed for YAML parsing, which may lead to performance issues or limitations.
2. **js-yaml**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for YAML parsing, potentially offering better performance.
		+ Can handle more complex YAML structures.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires loading an additional library (js-yaml.min.js).
		+ May have slower execution times compared to `JSON.parse`.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark is running on a desktop platform with Chrome 126, which may not be representative of other platforms or browsers.
* The test case uses a simple YAML string (`yamlString`) that might not reflect real-world usage scenarios.
* There's no comparison between parsing JSON and YAML simultaneously, which could provide more insights into the performance differences.

**Library: js-yaml**

The `js-yaml` library is used to parse YAML strings. Its purpose is to enable JavaScript developers to work with YAML data structures in their applications. The library provides a way to load YAML files or strings and convert them into JavaScript objects or other formats.

**Special JS feature/Syntax: None mentioned**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both `JSON.parse` and `js-yaml` are standard JavaScript libraries for parsing JSON and YAML data, respectively.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for parsing JSON or YAML include:

* Using other JavaScript libraries like `yaml-parser` or `json5`
* Implementing custom parsing logic using regular expressions or other techniques
* Utilizing third-party services or APIs for parsing JSON or YAML data

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own pros and cons, and may not offer the same performance or ease of use as built-in functions or dedicated libraries.

Related benchmarks:

js-yaml vs JSON.parse (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JSON.parse vs js-yaml

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

JSON.parse

js-yaml

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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