Benchmark: lodash camelCase vs javascript regex with predefined regex

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var toCamelCaseMatcher = /[^a-zA-Z0-9]+(.)/g

var str = 'live_dlick_product_caunt_blias'

Tests:

lodash
_.camelCase(str)
javascript
str.toLowerCase().replace(toCamelCaseMatcher, (_, chr) => chr.toUpperCase())

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

javascript

1.6M/s

lodash

1.1M/s

Fastest: javascript (1.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ javascript: 1,632,205 ops/sec
• lodash: 1,149,716 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
javascript

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/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/126.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

javascript

1.4M/s

lodash

1.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ javascript	1,406,620 Ops/sec
lodash	1,149,716 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 is being tested.

**Overview**

The test case compares two approaches to convert a string from camelCase to lowercase with underscores: using Lodash's `camelCase` function versus using a regular expression (regex) in JavaScript.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

In the "Script Preparation Code" section, we have:
```javascript
var toCamelCaseMatcher = /[^a-zA-Z0-9]+(.)/g;
```
This code defines a regex pattern `toCamelCaseMatcher` that matches any character that is not a letter or number (`[^a-zA-Z0-9]+`) followed by an optional sequence of characters (`.(`) to capture the matched character.

In the "Html Preparation Code" section, we have:
```html
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>
```
This code includes a reference to the Lodash library, which provides the `camelCase` function used in the test case.

**Test Cases**

We have two individual test cases:

1. **Lodash**
```javascript
_.camelCase(str)
```
This test case uses the `camelCase` function from Lodash to convert the input string `str` to camelCase.

2. **JavaScript Regex**
```javascript
str.toLowerCase().replace(toCamelCaseMatcher, (_, chr) => chr.toUpperCase())
```
This test case manually implements the regex pattern in JavaScript using the `toLowerCase()`, `replace()` methods.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches are compared in terms of performance and execution time.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash (`.camelCase` function)**

Pros:

* Highly optimized and tested
* Provides a simple and concise API
* Handles edge cases and errors well

Cons:

* Requires an external library (Lodash)
* May not be suitable for all use cases or performance-critical applications

**JavaScript Regex**

Pros:

* Customizable and flexible
* Can be used without any external dependencies
* Can handle more complex string manipulation scenarios

Cons:

* More verbose and prone to errors
* Performance may vary depending on the regex engine and implementation

**Other Considerations**

In addition to performance, it's also worth considering the following factors when choosing between these approaches:

* Readability: How easy is it to understand and maintain the code?
* Error Handling: How well do the libraries handle edge cases or errors?
* Maintenance: Is the library regularly updated and maintained?

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides a similar `camelCase` function to Lodash.
2. **String.prototype.replace() method**: Some browsers or environments may have a `replace()` method with better performance characteristics than others.
3. **Custom implementation using String.prototype.split(), join(), and charCodeAt() methods**: This approach requires more manual effort but can provide more control over the conversion process.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be suitable for all use cases, and their pros and cons will depend on your specific requirements and constraints.

lodash camelCase vs javascript regex with predefined regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `lodash vs javascript`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

lodash

javascript

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 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 camelCase vs javascript regex with predefined regex (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs javascript

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

lodash

javascript

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 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 vs javascript`