Benchmark: trim-loadsh vs native-trim

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var test = "abc a testing";

Tests:

trim lodash
_.trim(test);
native trim
test.trim();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
trim lodash
native trim

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 18 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
trim lodash	12321844.0 Ops/sec
native trim	1504485760.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that compare the performance of trimming strings using two different approaches:

1. **Lodash's `trim()` function**: A popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript, which provides a convenient way to trim whitespace from strings.
2. **Native string trimming**: The built-in `trim()` method of JavaScript strings, which removes leading and trailing whitespace characters.

**Options being compared**

The two test cases are:

1. `_.trim(test)`: This test case uses Lodash's `trim()` function to trim the input string `test`. Lodash is a third-party library that provides various utility functions for functional programming.
2. `test.trim()`: This test case uses the native `trim()` method of JavaScript strings to perform the same operation.

**Pros and cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash's `trim()` function:**
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and maintainable code, as it separates string trimming logic from string manipulation.
		- Can be more efficient for large strings, as it avoids creating temporary variables.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional library to be included in the project (Lodash).
		- May have a slightly higher overhead due to the function call and potential caching issues.
* **Native `trim()` method:**
	+ Pros:
		- No additional library required, reducing bundle size and dependencies.
		- Generally faster, as it's a native method that can be optimized by the JavaScript engine.
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and maintainable code, as string trimming logic is tightly coupled with string manipulation.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `trim()` function. The library is imported via the provided HTML script tag `<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>`.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, promises, or modern ES6+ features like arrow functions, template literals, or destructuring.

Related benchmarks:

trim-loadsh vs native-trim (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: trim lodash vs native trim

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

trim lodash

native trim

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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