Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
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
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
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):
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:
trim vs lodash/fp
trim-loadsh vs native-trim
lodash trim vs replace
trim-loadsh vs native-trim1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?