Benchmark: templte tmpl vs underscore v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.4.1/underscore-min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/blueimp-tmpl@3.19.0/js/tmpl.min.js"></script>

<script type="text/template" id="template-underscore">
  <% if (obj.name) {%>
    Hello <%=obj.name%>
  <% } else { %>
    Unknown
  <% } %>
</script>
  
<script id="template-tmpl" type="text/x-tmpl">
  {% if (name) { %}
    Hello {%=obj.name%}
  {% } else { %}
    Unknown
  {% } %}
</script>

Tests:

vanilla + underscore
_.template(document.getElementById('template-underscore').innerHTML, {name: 'hello'});
tmpl
tmpl('template-tmpl', {name: 'hello'});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla + underscore
tmpl

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two JavaScript templating engines: **Templated HTML (Blueimp) with Underscore.js** and **Vanilla Templating with Underscore.js**.

**Options Compared**

1.  **Templated HTML (Blueimp)**:
    *   Uses a proprietary templating engine called Blueimp Templating, which is now part of the Blueimp Gallery project.
    *   Provides a more extensive set of features and functionality compared to vanilla templating.
2.  **Vanilla Templating**:
    *   Uses only JavaScript as the templating language, without any additional libraries or frameworks.
    *   Offers a simpler, more lightweight approach with fewer dependencies.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Templated HTML (Blueimp)**:
    *   Pros: More powerful and feature-rich templating engine; better suited for complex template logic and reuse of templates.
    *   Cons: Larger dependency size due to the inclusion of Blueimp, which might impact page load times or bundle sizes.
*   **Vanilla Templating**:
    *   Pros: Smaller footprint, easier integration, and simpler syntax. Ideal for small templates with straightforward logic.
    *   Cons: Limited functionality compared to Blueimp; may require additional libraries or custom code for more complex use cases.

The choice between these two approaches depends on the specific requirements of your project:

*   If you need a robust templating engine with advanced features and reusability, Templated HTML (Blueimp) might be the better choice.
*   For smaller projects with simple template logic, vanilla templating could be sufficient and more suitable for size and performance considerations.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, the **Underscore.js library** is used to extend the functionality of both templating engines. Underscore provides a set of utility functions that can simplify tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more.

The purpose of using Underscore in these benchmarks is to demonstrate how both templating engines interact with this popular JavaScript utility library. By leveraging Underscore's functionality, both Blueimp Templating and vanilla templating are able to provide a more comprehensive set of features while minimizing the need for duplicate code or functionality.

**Special JS Feature**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript feature being tested in these benchmarks. The focus is on comparing two different templating engines: Templated HTML (Blueimp) with Underscore.js and vanilla templating with Underscore.js.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other notable alternatives for templating engines include:

*   **Handlebars**: A popular, open-source templating engine that offers a lot of flexibility and customization options.
*   **Mustache**: Another lightweight templating engine with a simple syntax and good performance characteristics.
*   **Pug**: A template engine based on the ERb language used in Ruby on Rails.

Each of these alternatives has its strengths and weaknesses, and may be more or less suitable for your project depending on specific requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:94.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/94.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanilla + underscore	9323.6 Ops/sec
tmpl	1850219.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

templte tmpl vs underscore v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla + underscore vs tmpl

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla + underscore

tmpl

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):