Benchmark: check navigator.language v2

Tests:

indexOf()
!navigator.language.indexOf('ru')
substr()
'ru'===navigator.language.substr(0,2)
test()
/^ru/.test(navigator.language)
=== || ===
navigator.language==='ru'||navigator.language==='ru-RU'
substring()
'ru'===navigator.language.substring(0,2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
indexOf()
substr()
test()
=== \|\| ===
substring()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
indexOf()	1113375.8 Ops/sec
substr()	1143462.6 Ops/sec
test()	948123.6 Ops/sec
=== \|\| ===	593731.1 Ops/sec
substring()	1130579.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark named "check navigator.language v2" assesses various methods of checking the user's language setting in the browser, specifically looking at options that detect if the locale is Russian ('ru') based on the `navigator.language` property.

### Comparison of Approaches

1. **indexOf() Method**
   - **Test Case**: `!navigator.language.indexOf('ru')`
   - **Description**: This method checks if 'ru' is found at the start of the `navigator.language` string. A value of 0 indicates that 'ru' is the starting substring, which is why it is negated (`!`) to reflect a successful detection.
   - **Pros**: Simple and straightforward; checks for the occurrence of a substring.
   - **Cons**: It's less readable than other methods, and it returns -1 if the substring isn't found, requiring additional checks.

2. **substr() Method**
   - **Test Case**: `'ru'===navigator.language.substr(0,2)`
   - **Description**: This method extracts the first two characters of `navigator.language` and compares them to 'ru'.
   - **Pros**: Very clear in intent, as it directly extracts a known quantity (the first two characters).
   - **Cons**: A bit less performant as it creates a new string from the original `navigator.language`, though the difference may be negligible.

3. **test() Method with Regular Expressions**
   - **Test Case**: `/^ru/.test(navigator.language)`
   - **Description**: Uses a regular expression to test if the `navigator.language` begins with 'ru'.
   - **Pros**: Very concise and expressive for pattern matching. It can easily be modified for more complex patterns.
   - **Cons**: Regular expressions can be slower for simpler cases compared to string methods and might be overkill for this simple check.

4. **Logical OR Comparison**
   - **Test Case**: `navigator.language==='ru'||navigator.language==='ru-RU'`
   - **Description**: Directly checks if the `navigator.language` is exactly 'ru' or 'ru-RU'.
   - **Pros**: Intuitive and clear; no intermediate string manipulation is needed.
   - **Cons**: Requires additional checks if other variants of Russian are present (e.g., 'ru-UA').

5. **substring() Method**
   - **Test Case**: `'ru'===navigator.language.substring(0,2)`
   - **Description**: Similar to `substr()`, it checks the first two characters but is a method on strings that extracts characters based on the specified start and end indices.
   - **Pros**: Clear and precise for extracting substring portions.
   - **Cons**: Also creates a new substring, making it slightly less efficient than a raw comparison.

### Benchmark Results

The benchmark results provide the number of executions per second for each method, indicating their performance:

- **Best Performing**: `substr()` with 1,143,462 executions/sec.
- Other high performers include `substring()` and `indexOf()`, followed by `test()` and then logical OR comparison, which is significantly lower in performance.

### Other Considerations
- **Readability vs Performance**: While performance is important, readability and maintainability of code are also significant factors. More readable code can be easier to maintain, even if it is slightly less performant.
- **Use Case Specificity**: The chosen method may depend on the specific use case requirements. For example, if the check needs to be extensively modified in future, using regex might be beneficial. Conversely, for fixed comparisons, string methods are likely more efficient.
- **Browser Compatibility**: All mentioned methods are widely supported across modern browsers, but it's always good to ensure compatibility with the specific audience's use case.

### Alternatives
- You can consider using third-party libraries that facilitate locale checks or internationalization, such as i18next or Intl API, which offer broader functionality and better handling of different locales.
- Leveraging browser features such as the Intl.Collator API can also help when dealing with multilanguage support beyond simple checks on `navigator.language`.

Related benchmarks:

check navigator.language v2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: indexOf() vs substr() vs test() vs === || === vs substring()

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

indexOf()

substr()

test()

=== || ===

substring()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):