Benchmark: lodash camelCase vs javascript camelCase

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'abc-def-ghl'

Tests:

lodash
_.camelCase(str)
javascript
str.split("-").map((item, index) => index ? item.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + item.slice(1).toLowerCase() : item).join("");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
javascript

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 12 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and analyze what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two approaches to convert a string from camelCase to underscore notation:

1. Using the `lodash` library: Specifically, the `_camelCase` function.
2. A vanilla JavaScript implementation using the `split()`, `map()`, and `join()` functions.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches on a sample input string `"abc-def-ghl"`. The options being compared are:

* Using a third-party library (`lodash`)
* Implementing the conversion manually in JavaScript

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Using `lodash`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simplified code (less boilerplate)
		+ Likely to be more efficient since it's a specialized library optimized for performance
	* Cons:
		+ Requires including an external library, which can introduce additional overhead
		+ May have licensing or compatibility issues
2. **Vanilla JavaScript implementation**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies or potential issues
		+ Can be more easily customized or extended if needed
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code and manual handling of edge cases
		+ May not be as optimized for performance

**Library: `lodash`**

`Lodash` is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, including string manipulation. The `_camelCase` function in particular converts camelCase strings to underscore notation.

In this benchmark, using `lodash` simplifies the code and likely optimizes performance since it's a specialized library designed for such operations.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. It only relies on standard JavaScript functions and libraries.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to convert camelCase strings frequently, other alternative approaches could be:

* Using a dedicated string manipulation library like `underscore` (another popular utility library)
* Implementing the conversion manually using regular expressions
* Using a custom function or helper module

However, these alternatives would likely not match the performance of `lodash`, especially if you're working with large datasets or high-performance applications.

Keep in mind that benchmarking results can vary depending on specific use cases and environment. MeasureThat.net's tests provide valuable insights into the relative performance of different approaches, but it's essential to consider additional factors when choosing a solution for your specific needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.107 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	883938.1 Ops/sec
javascript	1911588.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash camelCase vs javascript camelCase (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs javascript

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

javascript

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 12 days ago):