Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodashddddd
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs native
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
lodash
const t = "ssss"; _.isString(t)
native
const t = "ssss"; typeof t === 'string' || t instanceof String;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
native
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmarking test cases and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided Benchmark Definition JSON is minimal, indicating that there's no custom script or HTML preparation code. This means we'll focus on the JavaScript code itself. **Individual Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. `const t = "ssss"; _.isString(t);` 2. `const t = "ssss"; typeof t === 'string' || t instanceof String;` Both tests use a string literal `"ssss"` and compare its type or instance of a specific class. **Libraries Used** In both test cases, the library `lodash` is used. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more. * In the first test case, `_` (the underscore symbol) is an alias for the Lodash object. The function `.isString(t)` checks if the input `t` is a string. * In the second test case, there's no direct Lodash call; instead, it uses the native JavaScript operator `typeof t === 'string'`. This works because the `typeof` operator in JavaScript returns a string indicating the type of the operand. The expression `t instanceof String` checks if `t` is an instance of the `String` class. **Comparison** The two test cases compare different approaches to achieve the same result: 1. **Lodash**: Uses the `.isString(t)` function provided by Lodash to check if `t` is a string. 2. **Native JavaScript**: Uses the `typeof t === 'string' || t instanceof String` expression, which leverages native JavaScript features. **Pros and Cons** **Lodash Approach (`.isString(t)`)** Pros: * Convenient and concise way to check for string type * Part of a well-established library with many other useful functions Cons: * Adds extra overhead due to the use of an external library * May not be as efficient as native JavaScript implementation **Native JavaScript Approach (`typeof t === 'string' || t instanceof String`)** Pros: * No additional library dependencies, making it more lightweight and efficient * Native functionality, which is often faster than external libraries Cons: * More verbose code snippet compared to the Lodash approach * Requires a basic understanding of native JavaScript operators **Other Considerations** When testing these two approaches, consider factors like performance, maintainability, and code readability. In general, if you need to perform string type checks frequently, using an external library like Lodash might be more convenient. However, if you're targeting environments where size matters (e.g., mobile or embedded systems), the native JavaScript approach might be a better choice. **Alternatives** If you were to create your own test case, you could consider alternatives to Lodash's `.isString(t)` function, such as: * Using a simple regular expression (`t === t.replace(/^./, '')`) to check for non-empty strings * Implementing a custom string type checking function using bitwise operations and string manipulation Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or readable as the Lodash implementation.
Related benchmarks:
uniqBy performance
Array immutable union: lodash union vs flatten and creating a new set
hmmmmhmmm
uniqBy performance lodash vs native
Comparison of flatmap
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?