Benchmark: lodash isstring vs typeof

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var x = 'this'

Tests:

lodash
var y = _.isString(x)
typeof
var y = (typeof(x) === 'string')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
typeof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	14696034.0 Ops/sec
typeof	39631540.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to check if a string exists in JavaScript:

1. `_.isString(x)` from the Lodash library
2. `(typeof x === 'string')`

**Options compared:**

In this case, we have only two options being compared: using the `_.isString()` method from Lodash and using the `typeof` operator with a string comparison.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash's _.isString()**: This method is a utility function that checks if a value is a string. It is designed to be fast and efficient, as it uses a simple type check under the hood. However, it may not be suitable for all use cases, such as when working with null or undefined values.
2. **typeof operator with string comparison**: This approach involves using the `typeof` operator to get the type of the value, and then comparing it to `'string'`. While this method is straightforward, it can be slower than Lodash's method due to the overhead of the `typeof` operator.

**Pros of Lodash's _.isString():**

* Faster execution time
* More concise code
* Less prone to errors (e.g., null or undefined values)

**Cons of Lodash's _.isString():**

* Requires the presence of the Lodash library
* May not be suitable for all use cases

**Pros of typeof operator with string comparison:**

* No external dependencies required
* Simple and easy to understand code

**Cons of typeof operator with string comparison:**

* Slower execution time compared to Lodash's method
* More prone to errors (e.g., null or undefined values)

**Library used in the benchmark:**

The `_.isString()` method is from the Lodash library, which provides a set of utility functions for functional programming.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. However, if we were to add more test cases, we might see features like arrow functions, template literals, or newer language features.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to check if a value is a string without using Lodash, you can also use the `instanceof` operator or create your own custom function. For example:
```javascript
function isString(x) {
  return x instanceof String;
}
```
Alternatively, you could use the `toString()` method on the value and then check if it equals `'string'`.

Related benchmarks:

lodash isstring vs typeof (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs typeof

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

typeof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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