Hi friends, I did some minor changes to increase performance. the benchmark result is:

``` # Strings classcat* x 6,206,358 ops/sec ±1.24% (90 runs sampled) classnames x 3,408,198 ops/sec ±0.88% (92 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 7,434,060 ops/sec ±0.92% (93 runs sampled) clsx x 8,112,152 ops/sec ±0.90% (92 runs sampled)

# Objects classcat* x 5,865,653 ops/sec ±0.89% (92 runs sampled) classnames x 3,108,156 ops/sec ±0.90% (92 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 4,765,299 ops/sec ±0.83% (93 runs sampled) clsx x 6,063,173 ops/sec ±0.93% (93 runs sampled)

# Arrays classcat* x 5,471,773 ops/sec ±0.81% (92 runs sampled) classnames x 1,811,028 ops/sec ±0.71% (94 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 5,606,905 ops/sec ±1.12% (91 runs sampled) clsx x 5,710,108 ops/sec ±0.94% (92 runs sampled)

# Nested Arrays classcat* x 4,333,798 ops/sec ±0.97% (90 runs sampled) classnames x 1,066,391 ops/sec ±0.70% (93 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 4,351,329 ops/sec ±1.05% (93 runs sampled) clsx x 4,505,775 ops/sec ±0.94% (92 runs sampled)

# Nested Arrays w/ Objects classcat* x 4,524,749 ops/sec ±0.99% (92 runs sampled) classnames x 1,716,114 ops/sec ±0.78% (94 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 4,239,522 ops/sec ±0.96% (91 runs sampled) clsx x 4,702,464 ops/sec ±0.96% (93 runs sampled)

# Mixed classcat* x 4,826,735 ops/sec ±0.89% (94 runs sampled) classnames x 2,144,730 ops/sec ±0.92% (91 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 4,651,749 ops/sec ±1.04% (89 runs sampled) clsx x 5,129,713 ops/sec ±0.89% (91 runs sampled)

# Mixed (Bad Data) classcat* x 1,400,863 ops/sec ±0.87% (92 runs sampled) classnames x 1,038,999 ops/sec ±0.81% (93 runs sampled) clsx (prev) x 1,708,531 ops/sec ±0.98% (93 runs sampled) clsx x 1,830,703 ops/sec ±1.03% (93 runs sampled) ```

> Perf on MacBook Pro, 2.9 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 16 GB Ram

## [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/lukeed/clsx/pull/26?src=pr&el=h1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Luke+Edwards) Report All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark: > Comparison is base [(`6da37d6`)](https://app.codecov.io/gh/lukeed/clsx/commit/6da37d67472ea9eb177a4ea9a9fa2f3f4a3c445e?el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Luke+Edwards) 100.00% compared to head [(`8adf785`)](https://app.codecov.io/gh/lukeed/clsx/pull/26?src=pr&el=desc&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Luke+Edwards) 100.00%. > Report is 12 commits behind head on master.

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the [Codecov GitHub app](https://github.com/apps/codecov/installations/select_target) to enable full functionality.

<details><summary>Additional details and impacted files</summary>

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #26 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 100.00% 100.00% ========================================= Files 1 1 Lines 22 43 +21 ========================================= + Hits 22 43 +21 ```

</details>

[:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry](https://app.codecov.io/gh/lukeed/clsx/pull/26?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Luke+Edwards). :loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? [Share it here](https://about.codecov.io/codecov-pr-comment-feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Luke+Edwards).

Looks good. Could this be merged?

Possible for this to be merged?

@lukeed I bet you're really busy, but any chance to get this reviewed/merged? The PR's been open for nearly 8 months.

@lukeed any chance to get this merged? thanks for this great library :)

Has this been merged?

Does it look merged? :D

Waiting because all these PRs have varying results depending on the minor (or patch) version when benchmarking. There’s needs to be a clear/obvious pattern before accepting and releasing a new patch for all to consume, especially with a cost of a few extra bytes

Cashing the value avoids transversing the prototype chaining by looking for such a `.length` property, as some of you know.

@lukeed I know you said, "It doesn't matter": https://github.com/lukeed/clsx/issues/28#issuecomment-703781445

I tend to agree with you.

Except, it is such simple things to change without trading off complexity that I would take the code snippet from https://github.com/lukeed/clsx/issues/28

I am biased towards taking the "improvements."

The reason for the delay is that the code changes performed worse (if anything) for most of the recent Node/V8 versions due to the change in `while`->`for` loop. Caching the length had no noticeable effect for the majority of this time. (These things often come & go)

Merging now only because there's reproducible effect in the latest 20.x track. It's an increase of 5 bytes (2%) for an increase of -2% to 6% performance change. Numbers below. It's worth the trade-off only because the 6% perf gain is seen in the `Strings` case which is how nearly everyone uses clsx.

Thanks for the PR & patience @jalalazimi. However if you plan to keep your project you're currently in violation of MIT license. The source is near identical & there's no acknowledgement nor attribution anywhere. It's most clearly a fork & should be labeled as such.

**Benchmark Results**

``` Node 20.8.1

# Strings classnames x 6,576,471 ops/sec ±0.38% (95 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 12,933,752 ops/sec ±0.11% (95 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 12,142,343 ops/sec ±0.15% (99 runs sampled)

# Objects classnames x 6,318,942 ops/sec ±0.12% (99 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 9,473,723 ops/sec ±0.10% (100 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 9,466,986 ops/sec ±0.10% (99 runs sampled)

# Arrays classnames x 3,545,087 ops/sec ±0.22% (99 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 9,444,148 ops/sec ±0.09% (102 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 9,118,411 ops/sec ±0.17% (96 runs sampled)

# Nested Arrays classnames x 2,072,197 ops/sec ±0.20% (98 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 7,087,216 ops/sec ±0.32% (98 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 7,202,070 ops/sec ±0.52% (99 runs sampled)

# Nested Arrays w/ Objects classnames x 3,155,991 ops/sec ±0.40% (94 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 7,312,535 ops/sec ±0.50% (95 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 7,121,246 ops/sec ±0.27% (100 runs sampled)

# Mixed classnames x 4,163,925 ops/sec ±0.28% (97 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 8,086,030 ops/sec ±0.40% (98 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 7,921,147 ops/sec ±0.20% (97 runs sampled)

# Mixed (Bad Data) classnames x 1,909,345 ops/sec ±0.08% (101 runs sampled) clsx (pr26) x 2,973,733 ops/sec ±0.19% (99 runs sampled) clsx (main) x 2,964,893 ops/sec ±0.10% (101 runs sampled) ```

Thank you, @lukeed, for your prompt response; I really appreciate your support. I'll make sure to add a note explaining the purpose of my project and update the benchmark results accordingly.