Benchmark: String concatenation v.s. ES6 template

Script Preparation code:

function concatenation(a, b, c) {
	return "a = " + a + ", b = " + b + ", c = " + c;
}

function template(a, b, c) {
 	return `a = ${a}, b = ${b}, c = ${c}`;
}

var arrayTemplate = ["a = ", null, ", b = ", null, ", c = ", null];
function arrayJoin(a, b, c) {
  	arrayTemplate[1] = a;
  	arrayTemplate[3] = b;
  	arrayTemplate[5] = c;
  	return arrayTemplate.join("");
}

Tests:

Concatenation
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { window.a = concatenation(i, "random", "text"); }
ES6 template
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { window.a = template(i, "random", "text"); }
Array join
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { window.a = arrayJoin(i, "random", "text") }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Concatenation
ES6 template
Array join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark is designed to compare three different approaches for string concatenation in JavaScript: the traditional `+` operator, ES6 template literals (`\${}`), and an array join approach.

1. **Traditional Concatenation**: The first script defines a function `concatenation(a, b, c)` that takes three arguments and returns a string by concatenating them using the `+` operator.
2. **ES6 Template Literals**: The second script defines a function `template(a, b, c)` that takes three arguments and returns a string using template literals (`\${}`). This allows for more readable and efficient string formatting.
3. **Array Join**: The third script uses an array to store the parts of the concatenated string and then joins them together using the `join()` method.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches under different conditions:

* Traditional concatenation
* ES6 template literals
* Array join

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional Concatenation**
	* Pros: widely supported, easy to understand, no additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: can lead to unexpected behavior when dealing with large strings or complex data types (e.g., null or undefined values).
2. **ES6 Template Literals**
	* Pros: more readable and efficient than traditional concatenation, supports formatting options like `${variable} ${unit}`.
	* Cons: requires modern browsers that support ES6+ syntax, may not work in older environments.
3. **Array Join**
	* Pros: allows for dynamic string construction using an array of parts, can be faster than traditional concatenation for large strings.
	* Cons: more complex and harder to understand than traditional concatenation or ES6 template literals.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned, but the `join()` method used in the array join approach is a built-in JavaScript method that doesn't require any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6+ syntax (template literals) and modern browser features (e.g., the `window` object). These are not special features per se, but rather modern JavaScript capabilities that may not be supported in older environments or browsers.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches for string concatenation in JavaScript include:

* Using the `string.repeat()` method: `String('a' + 'b').repeat(2)` is equivalent to `"ab".concat("ab")`.
* Utilizing a library like Underscore.js, which provides a more functional programming style for string manipulation.
* Leveraging modern string interpolation libraries like LitTemplate or React's JSX.

Keep in mind that the best approach often depends on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.90 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 77 on Mac OS X 10.14.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Concatenation	36648.8 Ops/sec
ES6 template	35608.3 Ops/sec
Array join	14368.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String concatenation v.s. ES6 template (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: Concatenation vs ES6 template vs Array join

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Concatenation

ES6 template

Array join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):