Benchmark: Markdown Performance Comparison 26

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/marked@1.1.0/marked.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/commonmark@0.29.1/dist/commonmark.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/markdown-it@11.0.0/dist/markdown-it.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/remarkable@2.0.1/dist/remarkable.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/micromarkdown@0.3.0/dist/micromarkdown.min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://unpkg.com/snarkdown@1.2.2/dist/snarkdown.umd.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var conv = {
  marked: marked,
  cm: new commonmark.HtmlRenderer(),
  mdit: markdownit({ html: true }),
  remarkable: new remarkable.Remarkable(),
  micromarkdown: window.micromarkdown,
  snarkdown: window.snarkdown,
};

var pars = {
  cm: new commonmark.Parser()
};

function randword() {return Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15)+" "}

function md() { return [randword(),randword()+randword(),"## "+randword(),"","","1. "+randword(),"2. "+randword(),"","","---","","***"+randword()+"***","",
                       randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword()+randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),"",randword()+randword()+randword(),randword(),randword()].join("\n");}

Tests:

Marked
conv.marked(md());
CommonMark
conv.cm.render(pars.cm.parse(md()));
Markdown-it
conv.mdit.render(md());
Remarkable
conv.remarkable.render(md());
Micromarkdown
conv.micromarkdown.parse(md());
Snarkdown
conv.snarkdown(md());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Marked
CommonMark
Markdown-it
Remarkable
Micromarkdown
Snarkdown

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation of what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of six different Markdown implementations: Marked, CommonMark, Markdown-it, Remarkable, Micromarkdown, and Snarkdown. The goal is to determine which implementation performs best in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

Each test case compares a single Markdown implementation against another baseline (usually CommonMark). The options compared are:

1. **Marked vs. CommonMark**: This option tests the performance difference between Marked, which is a pure JavaScript Markdown parser, and CommonMark, which is a browser-based implementation.
2. **Markdown-it vs. Remarkable**: This option compares the performance of Markdown-it, a lightweight JavaScript library for parsing Markdown, against Remarkable, a more feature-rich Markdown editor with a focus on user experience.
3. **Micromarkdown vs. Snarkdown**: This option tests the performance of Micromarkdown, a small and lightweight JavaScript Markdown parser, against Snarkdown, a more comprehensive Markdown implementation with advanced features.

**Pros and Cons**

Each Markdown implementation has its strengths and weaknesses:

* **Marked**: Fast execution speed, but limited feature set.
* **CommonMark**: Robust feature set, but slower execution speed due to browser-based rendering.
* **Markdown-it**: Lightweight and fast, but lacks some advanced features.
* **Remarkable**: User-friendly interface, but slower execution speed compared to other options.
* **Micromarkdown**: Extremely lightweight and fast, but has a limited number of features.
* **Snarkdown**: Comprehensive feature set, but slower execution speed.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **marked**: A pure JavaScript Markdown parser developed by John Resig. It is known for its simplicity and ease of use.
2. **commonmark**: A browser-based implementation of the CommonMark specification, which provides a robust feature set while maintaining fast performance.
3. **markdown-it**: A lightweight JavaScript library for parsing Markdown, developed by Marked. It is designed to be simple and efficient while still providing many advanced features.
4. **remarkable**: A more comprehensive Markdown editor with a focus on user experience. It offers advanced features like syntax highlighting and code blocks.
5. **micromarkdown**: A small and lightweight JavaScript Markdown parser, developed by Hans-Michael Wilschut. It is known for its extreme simplicity and speed.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark uses some special JavaScript features:

1. **`Math.random()`**: Used to generate random text in the `md()` function.
2. **`window.micromarkdown` and `window.snarkdown`**: These are browser globals that reference the Micromarkdown and Snarkdown libraries, respectively.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other Markdown implementations or alternatives, some notable options include:

1. **DOMPurify**: A JavaScript library for sanitizing HTML input from user-generated content.
2. **Prism.js**: A lightweight JavaScript library for syntax highlighting and code blocks.
3. **Showdoc**: A lightweight JavaScript library for displaying Markdown documents.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/89.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Marked	15441.9 Ops/sec
CommonMark	13437.0 Ops/sec
Markdown-it	15694.6 Ops/sec
Remarkable	19032.3 Ops/sec
Micromarkdown	28450.4 Ops/sec
Snarkdown	21158.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Markdown Performance Comparison 26 (version: 0)

A performance comparison of leading Javascript Markdown implementations.

Comparing performance of: Marked vs CommonMark vs Markdown-it vs Remarkable vs Micromarkdown vs Snarkdown

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Marked

CommonMark

Markdown-it

Remarkable

Micromarkdown

Snarkdown

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):