Benchmark: regex vs javascript camelCase long

Script Preparation code:

var str = 'live-dlick-product-caunt-blias-123'

Tests:

regex
str.replace(/-([a-z])/g, (g) => g[1].toUpperCase())
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
regex
javascript

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 11 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for camelCase conversion:

1. **Regular Expressions (Regex)**: Using the `str.replace()` method with a regular expression to convert camelCase strings to PascalCase.
2. **JavaScript String Manipulation**: Using the `split()`, `map()`, and `join()` methods to achieve the same result.

**Options Compared:**
The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. Regex (using `str.replace()` with a regex pattern)
2. JavaScript String Manipulation (using `split()`, `map()`, and `join()`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Regex**: Pros:
	* Concise and readable syntax
	* Effective for simple string manipulation tasks
Cons:
	* Can be slower due to the overhead of compiling a regex pattern
	* May not perform well with very long input strings
2. **JavaScript String Manipulation**: Pros:
	* Often faster than regex due to optimized JavaScript engine implementation
	* More control over the conversion process
Cons:
	* Less readable and more verbose syntax compared to regex
	* Requires manual looping through the input string

**Library Used:**
None (no external library is required for this benchmark)

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**
The benchmark uses some advanced JavaScript features:

1. **Arrow functions**: The `str.replace()` method's callback function uses an arrow function, which is a concise way to define small anonymous functions.
2. **Template literals**: The `join()` method's string concatenation uses template literals, which provide a more readable and efficient way to concatenate strings.

**Other Alternatives:**
For camelCase conversion, other approaches might include:

1. Using the `camelcase` library (not used in this benchmark)
2. Implementing custom looping through the input string
3. Using a different string manipulation library or framework

In general, the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements. If readability is crucial, JavaScript String Manipulation might be preferred. However, if conciseness and simplicity are more important, Regex could be a better fit.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regex	2269897.0 Ops/sec
javascript	3501516.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

regex vs javascript camelCase long (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regex vs javascript

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regex

javascript

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 11 days ago):