Benchmark: trim() Access Methods

Script Preparation code:

var str = '                                   wefdwaefrwaef             asadf                  asdfasdfa           asdf '
var str2 = ''
var trim = String.prototype.trim

Tests:

Prototype APPLY
str2 = String.prototype.trim.apply(str)
Prototype CALL
str2 = String.prototype.trim.call(str)
Cached ProtoType APPLY
str2 = trim.apply(str)
Cached ProtoType CALL
str2 = trim.call(str)
Implicit TempObj
str2 = str.trim()
Explicit TempObj
var tempObj = new String(str) str2 = tempObj.trim() delete tempObj

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Prototype APPLY
Prototype CALL
Cached ProtoType APPLY
Cached ProtoType CALL
Implicit TempObj
Explicit TempObj

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of different ways to call the `trim()` method on strings in JavaScript. The test cases vary in how they approach this, and we'll break down each one.

**Options Compared**

There are six test cases:

1. **Prototype APPLY**: Calls `String.prototype.trim.apply(str)`
2. **Prototype CALL**: Calls `String.prototype.trim.call(str)`
3. **Cached Prototype APPLY**: Calls `trim.apply(str)` ( caching the result of `String.prototype.trim`)
4. **Cached Prototype CALL**: Calls `trim.call(str)` (caching the result of `String.prototype.trim`)
5. **Implicit TempObj**: Uses the implicit temporary object syntax, i.e., `str.trim()`
6. **Explicit TempObj**: Creates a new temporary object using `new String(str)`, followed by calling its `trim()` method

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief rundown of each approach:

* **Prototype APPLY** and **Prototype CALL**: These methods are efficient because they use the internal function cache of the `String.prototype.trim` method. However, they require a single call to create the `apply()` or `call()` context object, which can be overhead for some implementations.
* **Cached Prototype APPLY** and **Cached Prototype CALL**: By caching the result of `trim()`, we avoid the overhead of creating the `apply()` or `call()` context objects. This approach is more efficient but may not work in older browsers that don't support function caching.
* **Implicit TempObj**: This approach uses the implicit temporary object syntax, which can be faster because it avoids the overhead of creating a new object and then calling its method. However, this method may not be supported by all browsers.
* **Explicit TempObj**: Creating a new temporary object using `new String(str)` is the most explicit way to call `trim()`. While it's slower than the other methods due to the overhead of creating an object, it's also more browser-compatible.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, we're using the `String.prototype.trim` method from the JavaScript standard library. This method is a built-in function that removes whitespace characters (space, tab, newline, etc.) from both ends of a string.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark doesn't mention any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's already covered by the standard library and the approaches outlined above.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative ways to trim strings in JavaScript might include:

* Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `trim()` function that can handle various edge cases.
* Creating a custom trimming function using `String.prototype.replace()`.
* Using a string processing library like StringPilot or Trim.

However, these alternatives are not directly relevant to this specific benchmark, which focuses on the performance differences between different approaches to calling `trim()` on strings.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.42 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Prototype APPLY	2031348.8 Ops/sec
Prototype CALL	2038612.6 Ops/sec
Cached ProtoType APPLY	2580346.2 Ops/sec
Cached ProtoType CALL	2616805.0 Ops/sec
Implicit TempObj	3459093.0 Ops/sec
Explicit TempObj	1496696.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

trim() Access Methods (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Prototype APPLY vs Prototype CALL vs Cached ProtoType APPLY vs Cached ProtoType CALL vs Implicit TempObj vs Explicit TempObj

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Prototype APPLY

Prototype CALL

Cached ProtoType APPLY

Cached ProtoType CALL

Implicit TempObj

Explicit TempObj

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):