Benchmark: test_classnames_alt

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/classnames/2.3.1/index.min.js" integrity="sha512-6Wf/IjsSjLaFTYco3pXM+49kC5M7jtbHzxMcdmYvwDskjv7cMcBPmJX2053aoQ+LRi8Po4ZsCtkNMf+NhXhNyQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
 	 'style-2': true,
  	 'style-3': false,
 	 'style-4': true,
}

Tests:

classnames 2.3.1
let result = window.classNames(obj)
keys, filter, join
function classes(obj = {}) { return Object.keys(obj) .filter((key) => obj[key]) .join(' '); } let result = classes(obj)
string based
function ts(...args){ let template = ''; args.forEach(arg => { if (typeof arg === 'string') { template += ' '+arg; return; } if (arg.join) { arg.forEach((e) => { template += ' ' + e; }) return; } let entries = Object.entries(arg); if (entries.length) { entries.forEach(entry => { if(entry[1]) template += ' ' + entry[0] }) } }) return template; } let result = ts(obj)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
classnames 2.3.1
keys, filter, join
string based

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines two benchmarks: `test_classnames_alt` and three individual test cases. The main benchmark, `test_classnames_alt`, uses a JavaScript object (`obj`) to test the performance of different class name utilities.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case measures the performance of a specific approach to generating class names:

1. **classnames 2.3.1**: This test case uses the `classnames` library, which is a utility for working with CSS class names. The script includes the `classnames` library and passes an object (`obj`) as an argument.
	* Pros: Uses a well-established library that provides a standardized way of handling class names, making it easier to compare performance across different implementations.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the inclusion of the library and its dependencies.
2. **keys, filter, join**: This test case uses a custom implementation of a class name generator. The script defines a `classes` function that takes an object as input and returns a string containing the class names.
	* Pros: Custom implementation can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements.
	* Cons: Requires manual management of key-value pairs, filtering, and concatenation, which may lead to slower performance compared to using a library like `classnames`.
3. **string based**: This test case uses a custom implementation that manually generates class names by iterating over the object's keys and values. The script defines a `ts` function that takes an array of arguments (potentially representing objects) and returns a string containing the combined class names.
	* Pros: Custom implementation can be optimized for specific use cases or performance requirements, and it avoids using external libraries.
	* Cons: Requires manual management of key-value pairs, filtering, and concatenation, which may lead to slower performance compared to using a library like `classnames`.

**Library Explanation**

The `classnames` library is a popular utility for working with CSS class names. It provides a simple way to test for the presence of specific classes in an object and return the corresponding value.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark tests use special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, ES6 modules, or modern web APIs.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The `Script Preparation Code` section defines a JavaScript object (`obj`) with three key-value pairs: `'style-2': true`, `'style-3': false`, and `'style-4': true`. This object will be used as input for the class name utilities being tested.

The `Html Preparation Code` section includes a script tag that loads the `classnames` library version 2.3.1 from a CDN.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to using a custom implementation or the `classnames` library include:

* Using other CSS class name libraries, such as `classnames-legacy` or `css-class-name`.
* Implementing a custom class name generator using only vanilla JavaScript.
* Utilizing a different approach, such as using a template engine (e.g., Handlebars) to generate class names.

Keep in mind that the choice of implementation depends on specific requirements, performance constraints, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
classnames 2.3.1	2510474.5 Ops/sec
keys, filter, join	2491559.0 Ops/sec
string based	3328621.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test_classnames_alt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: classnames 2.3.1 vs keys, filter, join vs string based

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

classnames 2.3.1

keys, filter, join

string based

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):