Benchmark: parseint lodash vs native2

Tests:

native
parseInt("10")
lodash
_.parseInt("10")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash

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 explain what's tested on the provided JSON, compare options, and discuss pros and cons.

**What's being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to parsing an integer string:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Using the built-in `parseInt()` function in JavaScript.
2. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a `parseInt()` function as part of its functionality.

**Options compared:**

* Native JavaScript's `parseInt()` function
* Lodash's `parseInt()` function

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Native JavaScript's `parseInt()` function:**
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in, no external dependency required.
		+ Optimized for performance by the browser engine.
	* Cons:
		+ May have variations in behavior across different browsers or versions.
2. **Lodash's `parseInt()` function:**
	* Pros:
		+ Standardized, predictable behavior across all Lodash versions.
		+ Easy to use and maintain for developers already familiar with the library.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library).
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to the library's presence.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more. The `parseInt()` function in Lodash is designed to provide a standardized way to parse integers from strings, with options for handling edge cases like overflow or NaN inputs.

**Special JS feature: None mentioned**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely focused on comparing the performance of parsing an integer string using two different approaches.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to add more variants to the benchmark, you could consider adding other libraries or built-in functions that parse integers from strings, such as:

* `Number.parseInt()` (a similar function to `parseInt()`, but returns a number instead of modifying the original value)
* `JavaScript`'s `Atomics.parseInt()` function (which can handle parsing integers with specific precision and rounding modes)

Keep in mind that adding new variants would require careful consideration of performance, accuracy, and compatibility across different browsers and environments.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/68.0.3440.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 68 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native	2274473.2 Ops/sec
lodash	1578162.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parseint lodash vs native2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

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):