Benchmark: JSON primitive parse/stringify

Script Preparation code:

window.primitiveParse = val => {
	switch (val) {
		case 'true':
			return true;
		case 'false':
			return false;
		case 'null':
			return null;
		default:
			return JSON.parse(val);
	}
};

window.primitiveStringify = val => {
	switch (val) {
		case true:
			return 'true';
		case false:
			return 'false';
		case null:
			return 'null';
		case undefined:
			return undefined;
		default:
			return JSON.stringify(val);
	}
};

Tests:

primitive
primitiveParse(primitiveStringify(true)); primitiveParse(primitiveStringify(false));
JSON
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(true)); JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(false));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
primitive
JSON

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.

I'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring JavaScript performance on MeasureThat.net:

1. `primitiveParse(primitiveStringify(true));` and `primitiveParse(primitiveStringify(false))`
2. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(true));` and `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(false))`

**Primitive Parse/ Stringify**

The first set of tests focuses on primitive values using the custom functions `window.primitiveParse` and `window.primitiveStringify`. These functions are defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section of the benchmark definition.

*   `primitiveParse(val)`:
    *   Tries to parse the input value based on its primitive type (boolean, number, null).
    *   If the value is a boolean (`true` or `false`), it returns the corresponding primitive value.
    *   If the value is `null`, it returns `null`.
    *   Otherwise, it parses the input as a JSON string using `JSON.parse(val)`.
*   `primitiveStringify(val)`:
    *   Converts the input value to its string representation based on its primitive type (boolean, number, null).
    *   If the value is a boolean (`true` or `false`), it returns the corresponding string literal ('true' or 'false').
    *   If the value is `null`, it returns 'null'.
    *   Otherwise, it converts the input to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify(val)`.

**Pros and Cons of different approaches**

1.  **Direct Primitive Type Check** (`primitiveParse` and `primitiveStringify`):
    *   Pros:
        *   More readable code (using explicit switch statements).
        *   Potential performance benefits due to reduced parsing complexity.
    *   Cons:
        *   Code may not be as concise or efficient, especially for complex data types.

2.  **JSON-based Conversion** (`JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify`):
    *   Pros:
        *   More concise code (using built-in methods).
        *   Better support for complex data types and arbitrary-precision arithmetic.
    *   Cons:
        *   May incur additional overhead due to string parsing and serialization.

3.  **Hybrid Approach** (`primitiveParse`/`stringify` with `JSON.parse`/`stringify`):
    *   Pros:
        *   Balances conciseness and readability while leveraging the strengths of both approaches.
    *   Cons:
        *   May lead to slightly increased code complexity.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify` are part of the built-in JavaScript API and do not rely on external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly used in modern web development (e.g., ES6 syntax).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to consider when implementing a similar benchmark could include:

*   **Using the `typeof` operator**: Instead of relying on explicit primitive type checks, using the `typeof` operator can provide more concise code and better handling of complex data types.
*   **Leveraging the `Number.isFinite()` method**: For floating-point numbers, considering using the `Number.isFinite()` method to ensure precise results.
*   **Experimenting with different optimization techniques**: Such as inlining functions, reducing function call overhead, or utilizing browser-specific optimizations (e.g., WebAssembly).

When working on similar benchmarks, it's essential to carefully evaluate trade-offs between conciseness, performance, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

JSON primitive parse/stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: primitive vs JSON

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

primitive

JSON

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):