Benchmark: clsx vs classNames

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://unpkg.com/clsx@2.1.1/dist/clsx.min.js'></script>
<script>
  window.classNames = (...classes) => {
    return classes.filter(Boolean).join(" ");
  };
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'style';
var obj = {
 	 'style-2': true,
  	 'style-3': false,
 	 'style-4': true,
}
var arr = ['style-5', 'style-6']

Tests:

clsx
let result = window.clsx(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')
classNames
let result = window.classNames(str, obj, arr, 'test classname')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clsx
classNames

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
clsx	23982262.0 Ops/sec
classNames	10023104.0 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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript libraries: `clsx` and `classNames`. Both libraries are used to simplify the process of applying classes to HTML elements in a more concise and readable way. The comparison is focused on the performance and efficiency of each library when dealing with a specific set of use cases.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **clsx**: A utility library that allows you to compose class names by concatenating strings or arrays.
2. **classNames**: A lightweight alternative to `clsx`, also used for composing class names, but with some differences in syntax and behavior.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**clsx:**

Pros:

* Provides more flexibility and control over the composition process
* Allows for chaining method calls (`clsx(str, obj, arr)` becomes `str(clsx(obj), arr)`)
* Uses a more functional programming style

Cons:

* May be slower due to the added complexity of the composition process
* Requires importing an external library (in this case, from unpkg.com)

**classNames:**

Pros:

* Smaller and faster than clsx, as it uses a simpler approach to composing class names
* Easier to learn and use, especially for developers already familiar with plain JavaScript

Cons:

* Less flexible and less control over the composition process compared to clsx
* Does not support chaining method calls in the same way as clsx

**Library Purpose**

In this benchmark, both libraries are designed to simplify the process of applying classes to HTML elements. However, they differ in their approach and syntax.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Neither `clsx` nor `classNames` use any special JavaScript features or syntax that's not widely supported across different browsers and environments. They only rely on standard JavaScript features like functions, arrays, and strings.

**Other Alternatives**

For composing class names in a more concise way, other alternatives to `clsx` and `classNames` include:

* `React ClassNames` (part of the React library): A utility function for applying classes to React components
* `Ember ClassHelpers`: Utility functions for composing class names in Ember.js applications
* `CSS class names` with template literals: A more concise way of applying classes using template literals and CSS class names

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own strengths, weaknesses, and use cases, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific project requirements and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

clsx vs classNames (version: 0)

clsx vs classNames

Comparing performance of: clsx vs classNames

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

clsx

classNames

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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