Benchmark: TextDecoder vs String.fromCharCode 2023

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Uint8Array([84, 104, 105, 115, 32, 105, 115, 32, 97, 32, 85, 105, 110, 116,
    56, 65, 114, 114, 97, 121, 32, 99, 111, 110, 118, 101, 114, 116,
    101, 100, 32, 116, 111, 32, 97, 32, 115, 116, 114, 105, 110, 103
]);

Tests:

TextDecoder
new TextDecoder().decode(arr)
String.fromCharCode
String.fromCharCode.apply(null, arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
TextDecoder
String.fromCharCode

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
TextDecoder	1593654.6 Ops/sec
String.fromCharCode	1946740.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two benchmark tests:

1. `new TextDecoder().decode(arr)`: This test creates a new instance of the `TextDecoder` API and passes an array of Uint8Array to its `decode()` method.
2. `String.fromCharCode.apply(null, arr)`: This test applies the `String.fromCharCode()` function to each element in the provided array.

**Comparison**

The two tests are comparing the performance of these two approaches:

1. **TextDecoder**: A built-in JavaScript API that provides a more efficient way to decode binary data into a string.
2. **String.fromCharCode.apply()**: A legacy approach that uses `String.fromCharCode()` to create a new string from an array of integers representing Unicode code points.

**Pros and Cons**

**TextDecoder:**

Pros:

* More efficient and optimized for performance
* Handles encoding and decoding conversions automatically
* Supports more advanced features like text encoding schemes (e.g., UTF-8, UTF-16)

Cons:

* May require additional setup and initialization
* Not as widely supported in older browsers

**String.fromCharCode.apply():**

Pros:

* Widely supported across older browsers
* Easy to implement and understand

Cons:

* Less efficient and slower compared to TextDecoder
* Requires manual handling of encoding conversions
* Limited support for advanced features like text encoding schemes

**Library: None**

There are no external libraries used in these benchmark tests.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested or utilized in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for decoding binary data into a string could include:

1. Using the `Array.prototype.map()` method with a callback function to create a new array of characters.
2. Utilizing the ` Intl Decoding` API (introduced in ECMAScript 2019) which provides more advanced features like text encoding schemes and decoding conversions.

However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or optimized for performance as TextDecoder or String.fromCharCode.apply(), respectively.

In summary, the benchmark tests provide a comparison of two approaches for decoding binary data into a string: the built-in `TextDecoder` API and the legacy `String.fromCharCode.apply()` method. The choice between these options depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and browser support considerations.

Related benchmarks:

TextDecoder vs String.fromCharCode 2023 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: TextDecoder vs String.fromCharCode

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

TextDecoder

String.fromCharCode

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):