Benchmark: escape and escapeAttr and escapeLoop 2

Script Preparation code:

var html = "Self-closing tags do not exist in HTML. HTML elements that can’t have any child nodes";

Tests:

escape
function escape(s) { return s.replace(/[&<>\u00A0]/g, function(c) { switch(c) { case '&': return '&'; case '<': return '<'; case '>': return '>'; case '\u00A0': return ' '; } }); } escape(html)
escapeAttr
function escapeAttr(s) { var toEscape = /[&"<>\u00A0]/g; if (!toEscape.test(s)) { // nothing to do, fast path return s; } else { return s.replace(toEscape, function(c) { switch(c) { case '&': return '&'; case '<': return '<'; case '>': return '>'; case '\u00A0': return ' '; } }); } } escapeAttr(html)
escapeLoop
function escapeLoop(s) { for (let index = 0; index < s.length; index++) { switch (s[index]) { case "&": s[index]= "&"; break; case "<": s[index]= "<"; break; case ">": s[index]= ">"; break; case "\u00A0": s[index]= " "; break; } } return s; } escapeLoop(html)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
escape
escapeAttr
escapeLoop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net. The test compares three different approaches to escape special characters in HTML strings: `escape`, `escapeAttr`, and `escapeLoop`. These functions are designed to replace unwanted characters with their corresponding HTML entities.

**Options Compared**

1. **`escape`**: This function uses the `replace()` method to iterate through each character in the input string and replaces it with its escaped counterpart using a switch statement.
2. **`escapeAttr`**: Similar to `escape`, but this function uses a regular expression (`toEscape`) to check if any characters need to be replaced, allowing for a faster "fast path" for strings that don't require escaping.
3. **`escapeLoop`**: This function iterates through each character in the input string using a traditional `for` loop and replaces it with its escaped counterpart directly.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`escape`**:
	* Pros: Simple to understand, easy to implement.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the iterative approach and string replacement.
2. **`escapeAttr`**:
	* Pros: Efficient for strings that don't require escaping, uses regular expressions for faster performance.
	* Cons: Requires additional setup for the `toEscape` regular expression.
3. **`escapeLoop`**:
	* Pros: Simple implementation, no additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the traditional loop approach and string replacement.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, none of the functions use any external libraries or frameworks. They are pure JavaScript implementations.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the functions in this benchmark utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to escaping special characters could include:

1. Using `DOMPurify` library, which is a popular tool for safely sanitizing HTML strings.
2. Utilizing `DOMParser` and `XMLSerializer` APIs to parse and serialize the input string as HTML, allowing for automated escaping of special characters.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that `escapeAttr` is the fastest approach among the three, followed by `escape`, and then `escapeLoop`. The results indicate a significant performance difference between these approaches, which may be due to the use of regular expressions in `escapeAttr`.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is specific to measuring performance differences between these three escape functions. Depending on the context, other factors like maintainability, readability, or security might also be important considerations when choosing an approach for escaping special characters in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
escape	8204584.0 Ops/sec
escapeAttr	10773729.0 Ops/sec
escapeLoop	4728106.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

escape and escapeAttr and escapeLoop 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: escape vs escapeAttr vs escapeLoop

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

escape

escapeAttr

escapeLoop

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):