Benchmark: padLeft comparison with hard coded string

HTML Preparation code:

<script>
const buffer = crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(16))

function pad(pad, str) {
  if (typeof str === 'undefined') 
    return pad

  return (pad + str).slice(-pad.length)
}
</script>

Tests:

padLeft
for (let string = '', i = 0; i < buffer.length; i++) { string += buffer[i].toString(16).padStart(2, '0') }
slice
for (let string = '', i = 0; i < buffer.length; i++) { string += ('00' + buffer[i].toString(16)).slice(-2) }
slice template literal
for (let string = '', i = 0; i < buffer.length; i++) { string += `00${buffer[i].toString(16)}`.slice(-2) }
pad
for (let string = '', i = 0; i < buffer.length; i++) { string += pad('00', buffer[i].toString(16)) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
padLeft
slice
slice template literal
pad

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing four different approaches to padding a string with leading zeros:

1. `padLeft`
2. `slice`
3. `slice template literal`
4. `pad`

**Library Used: None**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided code, but it does use the `crypto` module for generating random data.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax:**

The benchmark uses a feature called "template literals" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to create string interpolation. Template literals are a syntax feature that allows you to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

Here's a brief explanation of each test case:

1. `padLeft`:
	* This approach uses the `pad` function with two arguments: the padding string and the input string.
	* The padding string is repeated until it reaches the desired length.
	* Example: `pad('00', 'ABC')` becomes `'0000'`.
2. `slice`:
	* This approach uses the `slice()` method to extract a portion of a string.
	* The `slice()` method takes three arguments: start, end, and length.
	* Example: `('ABC'.slice(-2))` returns `'BC'`.
3. `slice template literal`:
	* This approach uses template literals to create a string with leading zeros.
	* The syntax is similar to the `padLeft` approach but uses template literals instead of concatenation.
	* Example: `'00${'ABC'.toString(16)}` returns `'0000'`.
4. `pad`:
	* This approach uses the `pad` function with two arguments: the padding string and the input string.
	* The padding string is repeated until it reaches the desired length.
	* Example: `pad('00', 'ABC')` becomes `'0000'`.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach across different browsers, devices, and operating systems.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each approach:

1. `padLeft`
	* Pros: Simple and efficient.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the input string is shorter than the desired length.
2. `slice`
	* Pros: Flexible and can handle strings of varying lengths.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of the `slice()` method.
3. `slice template literal`
	* Pros: Simple and efficient, with a modern twist.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the input string is shorter than the desired length.
4. `pad`
	* Pros: Simple and efficient, similar to `padLeft`.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if the input string is shorter than the desired length.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. Use a library like `string-pad` or `pad-string` which provide a more robust and efficient way to pad strings.
2. Use a regex-based approach, such as `\b00${input}\b`.
3. Use a string manipulation library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which provide various methods for padding strings.

Overall, the benchmark provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of each approach across different browsers and devices.

Related benchmarks:

padLeft comparison with hard coded string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: padLeft vs slice vs slice template literal vs pad

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

padLeft

slice

slice template literal

pad

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):