Benchmark: Replace all occurrences in string without regex

Tests:

With array methods
let text = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit"; text = text.split("o").join("");
Iteractively
let text = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit"; while(text.indexOf("o") != -1) text = text.replace("o", "");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With array methods
Iteractively

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.192 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
With array methods	2147707.2 Ops/sec
Iteractively	658369.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month 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 Definition**
The provided JSON defines a JavaScript microbenchmark called "Replace all occurrences in string without regex". The goal of this benchmark is to replace all occurrences of a specific letter in a given string without using regular expressions. Instead, it uses array split and join methods iteratively with a while loop.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **With array methods**: This option uses the `split()` and `join()` methods to replace the target letter. It's a straightforward approach that leverages built-in JavaScript functions.
2. **Iteractively**: This option uses a while loop to iteratively check for the presence of the target letter in the string using the `indexOf()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **With array methods**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it avoids unnecessary checks and uses optimized built-in functions.
		+ Less prone to errors, as it relies on well-tested and stable JavaScript implementations.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the use of `split()` and `join()` methods, which might be slower for certain inputs or browsers.
2. **Iteractively**
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible, as it can handle edge cases or unexpected input more easily.
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient, as it involves more checks and iterations.
		+ Prone to errors, as the while loop logic might be fragile and require careful tuning.

**Library Used**
None explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, if we assume that the `indexOf()` method is being used, it's a part of the JavaScript Standard Library, which means it's built-in and available on most platforms.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**
Some alternative approaches to replace all occurrences of a letter without using regex could be:

1. **Using a for loop**: Similar to the iteratively option, but with a more traditional `for` loop structure.
2. **Regular expressions (although not explicitly allowed)**: Using regex would allow for a more expressive and flexible solution, but it's not in line with the "no regex" constraint of this benchmark.
3. **Other string manipulation libraries**: Depending on the specific requirements, other libraries like Lodash or Ramda might be used to implement this functionality.

Overall, the benchmark provides a good illustration of how different approaches can impact performance and efficiency in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Replace all occurrences in string without regex (version: 0)

Replace all occurrences of a letter in a string without using regex, using array split and join and iteractively with while loop.

Comparing performance of: With array methods vs Iteractively

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

With array methods

Iteractively

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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