Benchmark: replace vs splitjoin

Script Preparation code:

var str='Стэн против сил зла (2 сезон 1-8 серия из 8) (2017) WEB-DL 720p | Newstudio [AVC]';
var e = function (str) {
                    if (str) return str.
                        replace(/&/g, '&amp;').
                        replace(/</g, '&lt;').
                        replace(/>/g, '&gt;').
                        replace(/"/g, '&quot;').
                        replace(/'/g, '&#039;');
                    return '';
                };
var e2 = function (str) {
                    if (str) return str
                      .split('&').join('&amp;')
                      .split('<').join('&lt;')
                      .split('>').join('&gt;')
                      .split('"').join('&quot;')
                      .split("'").join('&#039;');
                    return '';
                };
var r = [/&/g,/</g,/>/g,/"/g,/'/g]
var e3 = function (str) {
                    if (str) return str.
                        replace(r[0], '&amp;').
                        replace(r[1], '&lt;').
                        replace(r[2], '&gt;').
                        replace(r[3], '&quot;').
                        replace(r[4], '&#039;');
                    return '';
                };

Tests:

a
e(str);
b
e2(str);
c
e3(str);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b
c

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark tests the performance difference between three approaches for encoding and decoding HTML special characters:

1. **`e(str)`**: This function uses `replace()` with multiple character replacements (ampersand, less-than, greater-than, double quotes, and single quotes) to encode the input string.
2. **`e2(str)`**: This function splits the input string into substrings using each special character as a delimiter (`&`, `<`, `>`, `"`, and `'`) and then joins them back together with the corresponding encoded characters.
3. **`e3(str)`**: This function uses an array of regular expressions to replace each special character individually.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches on a given input string, which contains HTML special characters. The test aims to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **`e(str)`**: This approach is simple and straightforward but may be slower due to the multiple `replace()` calls.
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, no additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the repeated character replacements.
2. **`e2(str)`**: This approach involves splitting and joining substrings, which can lead to string concatenation overhead.
	* Pros: Can be faster for larger input strings, allows for encoding/decoding in a single pass.
	* Cons: May not handle edge cases correctly, can lead to increased memory usage due to temporary substrings.
3. **`e3(str)`**: This approach uses regular expressions to replace special characters individually.
	* Pros: Can be faster than `e(str)` for larger input strings, allows for efficient encoding/decoding using a single pass.
	* Cons: Requires knowledge of regular expression syntax and may not handle edge cases correctly.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the provided benchmark code. However, it's worth noting that some browsers (like Safari) have built-in functions for HTML escaping (e.g., `String.prototype.replace()` with a regex pattern).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond regular expressions and string manipulation.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to encoding/decoding HTML special characters could include:

1. **Template literals**: Using template literals (e.g., `template literals: "Hello ${ampersand} World!"`) for HTML escaping.
2. **HTML escape libraries**: Utilizing existing HTML escape libraries like [DOMPurify](https://www.dompurify.net/) or [js-xss](https://github.com/secure js-xss).
3. **String encoders**: Using string encoders like [URI.js](https://github.com/daffek/uri) for URL encoding.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, trade-offs, and use cases depending on the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

replace vs splitjoin (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b vs c

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

c

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):