Benchmark: Ramada - Vanilla

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.1/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var text = 'lorem ipsum dolor sit amet';

Tests:

Vanila JS
function capitalize(text) { return text[0].toUpperCase() + text.slice(1).toLowerCase(); } var result = capitalize(text);
Ramada
const capitalize = R.when( R.is(String), R.pipe(R.toLower, R.replace(/^./, R.toUpper)), ); var result = capitalize(text);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanila JS
Ramada

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Vanila JS

4.1M/s

Ramada

285K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Vanila JS	4,112,519 Ops/sec
Ramada	285,207 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to capitalize a string: using vanilla JavaScript and using the Ramda library.

**Options Compared**

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This approach uses native JavaScript functions, such as `toUpperCase()` and `toLowerCase()`, to capitalize the first character of the input string.
2. **Ramda Library**: This approach uses the Ramda library's functional programming utilities, specifically `R.when()` and `R.is()`, to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	* Pros:
		+ Native JavaScript implementation, which can be faster and more efficient.
		+ No dependencies on external libraries.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more complex logic and syntax to achieve the desired result.
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of function calls and object lookups.
2. **Ramda Library**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a concise and elegant way to express functional programming concepts, making the code easier to read and maintain.
		+ Utilizes optimized C++ implementations for performance-critical functions.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional dependency on the Ramda library, which can introduce overhead and complexity.
		+ May not be suitable for all use cases due to its functional programming paradigm.

**Ramda Library**

The Ramda library is a popular JavaScript library for functional programming. Its purpose is to provide a set of high-level functions that make it easy to work with data in a declarative, functional style. In this benchmark, the `R.when()` and `R.is()` functions are used to create a pipeline of operations that ultimately capitalizes the first character of the input string.

**Other Considerations**

1. **JavaScript Features**: The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect its performance or behavior. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have specific optimizations or implementations for certain features.
2. **Alternative Approaches**: Other alternatives to consider when capitalizing a string might include using regular expressions, template literals, or other libraries like Lodash.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The benchmark preparation code includes two scripts:

1. The first script defines the input text and an empty function that will be used as a placeholder for the actual benchmarking logic.
2. The second script imports the Ramda library and creates a pipeline of operations to capitalize the input string using `R.when()` and `R.is()`.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Achieved an execution rate of 4112519 executions per second on Chrome 122.
2. **Ramda Library**: Achieved an execution rate of 285207.125 executions per second on Chrome 122.

These results suggest that the vanilla JavaScript implementation is currently faster, but it's essential to note that benchmarking results can vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

Ramada - Vanilla (version: 0)

Capitalize

Comparing performance of: `Vanila JS vs Ramada`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Vanila JS

Ramada

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Ramada - Vanilla (version: 0)

Capitalize

Comparing performance of: Vanila JS vs Ramada

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Vanila JS

Ramada

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: `Vanila JS vs Ramada`