Benchmark: parseint lodash vs native

Tests:

native
parseInt("10",10)
lodash
_.parseInt("10",10)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

native

62.5M/s

lodash

18.9M/s

Fastest: native (3.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ native: 62,487,396 ops/sec
• lodash: 18,867,476 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

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_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

native

228.0M/s

lodash

56.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ native	227,989,840 Ops/sec
lodash	56,433,408 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the execution performance of two approaches:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Using the built-in `parseInt` function in JavaScript.
2. **Lodash library**: A popular utility library that provides a `parseInt` function, which wraps the native `parseInt` behavior.

**Options Being Compared**

Two options are being compared:

* Native JavaScript (`native`)
* Lodash library (`lodash`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Native JavaScript (`native`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in, no additional overhead.
		- Typically faster execution due to optimization by the browser or engine.
	+ Cons:
		- Less flexible, as it only supports base 10 parsing.
		- May not work in all environments (e.g., older browsers).
* **Lodash library (`lodash`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a more flexible way to parse integers with various bases (not limited to base 10).
		- Can be used in multiple contexts, including Node.js and browser environments.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an extra layer of overhead due to the library's existence.

**Library and Purpose**

The `lodash` library is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, it's used to provide a more flexible way to parse integers with different bases using its `parseInt` function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to parse integers with different bases, other alternatives could include:

* Using the `parseInt` function with a custom base argument (e.g., `parseInt('10', 2)` for binary parsing).
* Implementing your own integer parsing function using bitwise operations and arithmetic.
* Using alternative libraries like `mathjs` or `decimal.js`, which provide advanced mathematical functions, including parsing integers.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code is not provided in the given JSON snippet. However, based on the benchmark definition, it's likely that the script preparation code includes a function that initializes the environment for the test cases and prepares the input data (e.g., a string containing the integer to parse).

Similarly, the HTML preparation code is also not provided, but it might include settings or configurations specific to the browser or testing environment.

Keep in mind that this explanation assumes a basic understanding of JavaScript and its ecosystem. If you're new to JavaScript or benchmarking, I hope this helps you understand the concept and context behind the MeasureThat.net benchmark!

parseint lodash vs native (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `native vs lodash`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

native

lodash

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

parseint lodash vs native (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

native

lodash

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 8 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `native vs lodash`