Benchmark: Lodash toString vs String Constructor 2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function native(values) {
   return values.map(String); 
}

function lodash(values) {
   return values.map(_.toString); 
}

Tests:

Native
native([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])
Lodash
lodash([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])

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: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	3305749.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	2588759.0 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, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for converting an array of values to strings:

1. **Native**: Using the `String()` constructor in JavaScript.
2. **Lodash**: Using the `_toString` method from the Lodash library.

**Options Compared**

* Native: Using the built-in `String()` constructor, which converts each element to a string using the element's own value as the conversion strategy (e.g., numbers are converted to their numeric strings, booleans are converted to "true" or "false", etc.).
* Lodash: Using the `_toString` method from Lodash, which provides a more controlled and standardized way of converting values to strings.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native**:
	+ Pros: Simple, lightweight, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May produce unexpected results for certain edge cases (e.g., NaN or Infinity), and may be slower than Lodash due to the overhead of function calls.
* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: Provides a standardized way of converting values to strings, reducing the risk of unexpected behavior. Also, can handle more complex cases, like arrays and objects with custom conversion strategies.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency (Lodash), which may add overhead.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and functional programming. The `_toString` method is one of its many utility functions that can be used to convert values to strings in a controlled way.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

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

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting arrays to strings could include:

* Using the `Array.prototype.map()` method and a custom callback function.
* Using a library like Underscore.js (similar to Lodash) or Moment.js (for date and time formatting).
* Writing a custom implementation using JavaScript's built-in functions, such as `toString()`, `valueOf()`, and `concat()`.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash toString vs String Constructor 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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