Benchmark: lodash parseint vs parseInt

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = "123456"

Tests:

lodash
_.parseInt(str);
javascript
parseInt(str);

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark explanation in a way that's easy to understand for software engineers of all levels.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, which compares the performance of two approaches: using the built-in `parseInt()` function and using the `_.parseInt()` function from the Lodash library.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **JavaScript's `parseInt()`**: This is the built-in function in JavaScript that converts a string to an integer.
2. **Lodash's `_.parseInt()`**: This is a utility function from the popular Lodash library, which provides various functions for common tasks.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **JavaScript's `parseInt()`**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, no additional library dependency.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected with edge cases (e.g., null or undefined input).
* **Lodash's `_.parseInt()`**:
	+ Pros: Robust handling of edge cases, support for decimal numbers.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the specific requirements of your project:

* If you need a lightweight solution with minimal dependencies, JavaScript's `parseInt()` might be sufficient.
* If you require robust handling of edge cases and support for decimal numbers, Lodash's `_.parseInt()` is a better choice.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functions for common tasks. In this benchmark, the `_.parseInt()` function is used to compare with the built-in `parseInt()` function from JavaScript.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax. The code is straightforward and relies solely on the two functions being compared.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for comparing integer parsing performance might include:

* Using a different library, such as Moment.js or Mathjs.
* Implementing a custom integer parser function.
* Comparing multiple other libraries or approaches that provide similar functionality (e.g., `Number.parseInt()` from ECMAScript 2015).

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific requirements and project constraints.

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/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	2717146.8 Ops/sec
javascript	3647933.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash parseint vs parseInt (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs javascript

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