Benchmark: Lodash template VS JS Replace

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var testString = 'We demystify ${variable1} porn and ${variable2} alternative sexuality ${variable3} authentic kinky porn and bondage videos. Experience the other side of porn with Kink.'

var params = { variable1: 'value1', variable2: 'value2', variable3: 'value3' };

Tests:

Lodash template
_.template(testString)(params);
JS Replace
let replaced = testString; Object.keys(params).forEach(key => { replaced = replaced.replaceAll(`\$\{${key}\}`, params[key]); });

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 9 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

JS Replace

1.2M/s

Lodash template

40K/s

Fastest: JS Replace (30.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ JS Replace: 1,239,812 ops/sec
• Lodash template: 40,146 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
Lodash template
JS Replace

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; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

JS Replace

1.4M/s

Lodash template

46K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ JS Replace	1,421,552 Ops/sec
Lodash template	45,754 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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for rendering template strings:

1. **Lodash Template**: Using Lodash's `template` function to render a template string with dynamic variables.
2. **JS Replace**: Using JavaScript's built-in `replaceAll` method (in combination with regular expressions) to replace placeholders in the template string.

**Script Preparation Code:**

The script preparation code defines a test string (`testString`) and an object (`params`) containing variable values to be used for rendering the template string.

**Html Preparation Code:**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to Lodash's `lodash.min.js` library, which is loaded into the browser.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Lodash Template**: The benchmark definition uses Lodash's `template` function to render the template string with dynamic variables.
2. **JS Replace**: The benchmark definition uses JavaScript's built-in `replaceAll` method to replace placeholders in the template string.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Lodash Template**: Using a library-specific approach for rendering template strings.
* **JS Replace**: Using a browser-specific, built-in method for replacing placeholders.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Lodash Template:**

Pros:

* Easy to use and maintain, as it leverages a well-established library (Lodash).
* Can be more readable and efficient for complex template strings.

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency (Lodash) that may not be present in all environments.
* May incur additional overhead due to the library's initialization and lookup processes.

**JS Replace:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies, making it suitable for environments where Lodash is not available or supported.
* Uses a built-in method, which can be more efficient since it doesn't require any additional setup or initialization.

Cons:

* May be less readable due to the use of regular expressions and `replaceAll` method.
* Can be slower in certain scenarios, especially when dealing with complex template strings.

**Other Considerations:**

When choosing between these options, consider the following factors:

* **Performance:** JS Replace might be faster for simple cases, but Lodash Template might outperform it for more complex templates or those that require additional logic.
* **Readability and Maintainability:** Lodash Template is generally easier to read and maintain due to its concise syntax and library support.
* **Compatibility:** If the benchmark will run in environments where Lodash is not available, JS Replace becomes a more suitable option.

**Libraries and Features:**

The test case uses the following library:

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for string manipulation, template rendering, and more. In this case, it's used for its `template` function.

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition that require specific attention or expertise.

Lodash template VS JS Replace (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Lodash template vs JS Replace`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash template

JS Replace

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 9 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Lodash template VS JS Replace (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Lodash template vs JS Replace

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash template

JS Replace

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 9 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 9 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: `Lodash template vs JS Replace`