Benchmark: lodash trim vs native replace

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash-fp/0.10.4/lodash-fp.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var test = ' tom hanks '

Tests:

lodash trim
_.trim(test, ' ,')
native replace
test.replace(/(^[,\s]+)|([,\s]+$)/g, "")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash trim
native replace

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash trim	9894861.0 Ops/sec
native replace	13956764.0 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.

**What's being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches for trimming whitespace from a string:

1. **Lodash trim**: This uses the `_.trim()` function from the Lodash library, which removes leading and trailing whitespace from a string.
2. **Native replace**: This uses the native JavaScript `replace()` method with a regular expression to remove leading and trailing whitespace.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Lodash trim**: Uses the `_.trim()` function from Lodash library, which is a utility library that provides various functions for functional programming in JavaScript.
* **Native replace**: Uses the native JavaScript `replace()` method with a regular expression to remove whitespace.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **Lodash trim**:
	+ Pros: Can be more readable and maintainable, especially for complex trimming scenarios. Lodash is also well-tested and widely used.
	+ Cons: Requires including an additional library (Lodash) in the test code.
* **Native replace**:
	+ Pros: Doesn't require any additional libraries or dependencies. Can be faster since it's a native method.
	+ Cons: May be less readable and more prone to errors, especially for complex trimming scenarios.

**Library**

The `lodash-fp` library is used in the benchmark. `fp` stands for "functional programming," which refers to a style of programming that emphasizes functional composition and recursion. The library provides various functions for working with data structures in a functional way, including string manipulation functions like `trim()`.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other trimming approaches, here are some additional options:

* **String.prototype.trim()**: This is another native JavaScript method that removes leading and trailing whitespace from a string.
* **Array.prototype.map() + String.prototype.replace()**: This approach uses the `map()` function to create an array of trimmed characters, then uses the `replace()` method to concatenate them into a single string.

Here's some sample code to illustrate these alternatives:
```javascript
// String.prototype.trim()
var result = '   tom hanks   '.trim();

// Array.prototype.map() + String.prototype.replace()
var result = [' ', ...new Array(5).fill(''), ...['tom', 'hanks', ' ']].map(c => c === ' ').join('');
```
Note that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the Lodash trim and native replace approaches.

Related benchmarks:

lodash trim vs native replace (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash trim vs native replace

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash trim

native replace

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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