Benchmark: escaping html 32

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

function esc(a, b, i) {
    let { 0: regex, 1: rep } = specialChars[i]
    return`${a.replace(regex, rep)}${typeof b === 'string' ? b.replace(regex, rep) : ''}`
}
function escape1(str) {
    return specialChars.reduce(esc, str)
}
const specialChars = [[/>/g, '&gt;'], [/</g, '&lt;'], [/&(?![#\w]+;)/g, '&amp;'], [/'/g, '&apos;'], [/"/g, '&quot;']]
let n = document.createElement('div')
function escape2(str) {
  n.textContent = str
  return n.innerHTML
}

Tests:

escape with regex
for(let i = 300; i--;) escape1(`<p>&"'hello</p>`)
built in escaping
for(let i = 300; i--;) escape2(`<p>&"'hello</p>`)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
escape with regex
built in escaping

escaping html 32 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `escape with regex vs built in escaping`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

escape with regex

built in escaping

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

escaping html 32 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: escape with regex vs built in escaping

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

escape with regex

built in escaping

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Comparing performance of: `escape with regex vs built in escaping`