Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-to-stirng

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);

Tests:

string-interpolation
` ${luckyNumber}`
string-concatenation
luckyNumber.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
string-concatenation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, where users can compare different approaches to perform string operations in JavaScript.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple script that generates a random number between 0 and 100 using `Math.random()` and multiplies it by 100. The resulting value is then stored in the `luckyNumber` variable. This variable is used as input for two test cases: string interpolation and string concatenation.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **String Interpolation**: The benchmark definition uses template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to concatenate a string with the `luckyNumber` value. The syntax is ``${luckyNumber}``, which is equivalent to `${ luckyNumber.toString() }`. This approach allows for easy formatting of strings without creating intermediate concatenation.
2. **String Concatenation**: In this test case, the benchmark definition uses the `toString()` method to convert the `luckyNumber` value to a string and then concatenates it with another string using the `+` operator. The syntax is `luckyNumber.toString() + "some string"`. This approach creates an intermediate string object.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare two different approaches:

* **String Interpolation**: Uses template literals for formatting strings.
* **String Concatenation**: Uses the `toString()` method and concatenation (`+`) operator to format strings.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **String Interpolation (Template Literals)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and expressive syntax
		- Can be more efficient than concatenation for large numbers of string concatenations
	+ Cons:
		- Requires support for ECMAScript 2015 or later (for older browsers, you might need to polyfill this feature)
* **String Concatenation**:
	+ Pros:
		- Wide compatibility with older browsers and environments
		- No additional library dependencies required
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable syntax
		- Can lead to intermediate string object creation, which can be slower

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark test case. However, MeasureThat.net might use a custom JavaScript engine or framework that provides optimized string operations.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals (used in the **String Interpolation** test case) are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They provide a more readable and expressive way to format strings without creating intermediate concatenation.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Using `String.format()`**: This method is supported by most modern browsers and provides a way to format strings using placeholders.
* **Using a string formatting library**: Libraries like Moment.js or Luxon provide additional features for date and time formatting, as well as other string formatting options.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and target audience. MeasureThat.net's benchmark test cases can help you understand the relative performance characteristics of different string operations in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	13921980.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	13465780.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-to-stirng (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):