Benchmark: Word split - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function splitWords(text) {
    let word = '', newText = '';
    const capReg = new RegExp(/^[A-Z]$/);
    const alphaNumReg = new RegExp(/^[a-z0-9]$/);

    for (let i = 0; i <= text.length - 1; i++) {
        if (
            capReg.test(text[i]) && capReg.test(text[i + 1]) && alphaNumReg.test(text[i + 2]) ||
            alphaNumReg.test(text[i]) && capReg.test(text[i + 1]) ||
            !text[i + 1]
        ) {
            newText = `${newText} ${word}${text[i]}`;
            word = '';
        } else {
            word = word + text[i];
        }
    }

    return newText;
}

Tests:

function
splitWords('MyCamelCaseStringID');
through regexp
"MyCamelCaseStringID".replace(/([a-z0-9])([A-Z])/g, '$1 $2')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
function
through regexp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark for the task of splitting words in a camelCase string. The `Script Preparation Code` section defines a function named `splitWords` that takes a string as input and returns a new string with each word separated by spaces. The function uses regular expressions to identify capital letters and numbers.

The `Html Preparation Code` is empty, indicating that no HTML preparation code is required for this benchmark.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. **Using a Function**: The first test case measures the execution time of the `splitWords` function. This approach tests the performance of a custom-written JavaScript function to split words.
2. **Through Regexp**: The second test case uses a regular expression (`replace(/([a-z0-9])([A-Z])/g, '$1 $2')`) to achieve the same result as the `splitWords` function. This approach tests the performance of using a built-in JavaScript method with a regular expression.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using a Function**:
	+ Pros: This approach allows for more control over the implementation and can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons: The function needs to be written and tested, which can add overhead.
* **Through Regexp**:
	+ Pros: Regular expressions are widely supported in JavaScript and can be used to achieve complex string manipulations efficiently.
	+ Cons: This approach relies on the performance of the `replace` method, which may vary depending on the browser and engine.

**Library and Purpose**

The `splitWords` function uses regular expressions to split words. The specific regular expressions used are:

* `capReg`: Tests if a character is uppercase (`^[A-Z]$`)
* `alphaNumReg`: Tests if a character is alphanumeric (`^[a-z0-9]$`)

These regular expressions help identify the boundaries between words in the camelCase string.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond regular expressions. The code uses standard JavaScript constructs, such as functions, loops, and `replace`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Using String.prototype.split()**: Instead of writing a custom function, you could use the built-in `split()` method with a regex separator. This would eliminate the need for the regular expressions and simplify the code.
* **Using a Library like UglifyJS**: If you wanted to optimize the performance of the benchmark, you could use a library like UglifyJS to compress and minify the JavaScript code before running it.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might change the nature of the benchmark or introduce new variables not accounted for in this explanation.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3578.98 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 71 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
function	61194.4 Ops/sec
through regexp	332959.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Word split (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: function vs through regexp

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

function

through regexp

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):