Benchmark: String Constructor vs Lodash toString

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function native(values) {
   return values.map(String); 
}

function lodash(values) {
   return values.map(_.toString); 
}

Tests:

Native
native([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])
Lodash
lodash([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects: `Benchmark Definition` and `Script Preparation Code`. The `Benchmark Definition` defines the test case, which in this case is a simple string mapping operation using the `String` constructor versus Lodash's `toString()` method. The `Script Preparation Code` provides the JavaScript functions to be used for the test case.

**Options Compared**
The two options being compared are:

1. **Native**: Using the `String` constructor to convert values to strings.
2. **Lodash**: Using Lodash's `toString()` method to convert values to strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Native (String Constructor)**:
	+ Pros: Typically faster, as it's a built-in JavaScript function that can be optimized by the engine.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly with certain types of data, such as objects or functions, which may require additional processing to convert to strings.
* **Lodash (toString())**:
	+ Pros: More robust and safe for handling different types of data, including objects and functions. It's also more explicit about its intent.
	+ Cons: May be slower than the native approach due to the overhead of calling a library function.

**Library Used - Lodash**
Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and functional programming. In this benchmark, Lodash's `toString()` method is used to convert values to strings.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**
Other alternatives to using the `String` constructor could include:

* Using a custom implementation for string conversion
* Using other libraries, such as Moment.js for date formatting
* Using web workers or WebAssembly for parallel processing

It's worth noting that these alternatives may not be relevant for this specific benchmark, which is focused on comparing the performance of two simple string mapping operations.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**
The script preparation code provides two functions: `native()` and `lodash()`. These functions take an array of values as input and return a new array with the same values converted to strings using either the native approach or Lodash's `toString()` method, respectively.

Related benchmarks:

String Constructor vs Lodash toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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