Benchmark: Teste de abrodagem

Tests:

to string
const num = 2 let result = num.toString()
template literal
const num = 2 let result = `${num}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
to string
template literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
to string	107870408.0 Ops/sec
template literal	841460096.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmarking provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases, each with a specific scenario designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: `toString()` and template literals. The benchmark uses JavaScript as the programming language.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

1. **`toString()`**: This is a built-in method in JavaScript that converts an object to its string representation. It's used to convert numbers to strings.
2. **Template Literals**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), template literals are a syntax for creating strings that allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (``).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### `toString()`

Pros:

* Widely supported across different browsers and JavaScript engines.
* Simple and straightforward to use.

Cons:

* May not be the most efficient way to convert numbers to strings, especially for large values.
* Can lead to unnecessary string concatenation if used in a loop or with many iterations.

### Template Literals

Pros:

* More expressive and readable than `toString()` when working with complex data structures.
* Efficiently converts numbers to strings using a single operation.

Cons:

* May not be supported in older browsers or JavaScript engines (although it's becoming increasingly common).
* Can lead to longer execution times if the template literal expression is computationally expensive.

**Other Considerations**

In this benchmark, we notice that both test cases are executed on the same device platform and operating system. This helps ensure a consistent environment for the tests.

However, it would be interesting to see how these results compare across different platforms, browsers, or JavaScript engines to get a more comprehensive understanding of their performance characteristics.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that MeasureThat.net uses some underlying library or framework to execute and measure the benchmarks.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The template literal syntax (e.g., `const num = 2\r\nlet result = ${num}`) is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks, which can simplify the process of working with strings and data structures.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative microbenchmarks or testing frameworks, here are some options:

1. **jsPerf**: A popular benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring JavaScript performance.
2. **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight benchmarking library that allows you to write custom benchmarks using a simple syntax.
3. **WebPageTest**: A comprehensive testing tool that not only measures JavaScript performance but also evaluates web page loading times, responsiveness, and other factors.

These alternatives offer varying degrees of customization, support for different programming languages, and integration with other tools and frameworks.

Related benchmarks:

Teste de abrodagem (version: 0)

Teste de abrodagem

Comparing performance of: to string vs template literal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

to string

template literal

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):