Benchmark: interpolation vs concat

Script Preparation code:

var world = "World";

Tests:

inter
result = `Hello ${world}`
concat
result = "Hello " + world

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inter
concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.93 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
inter	3383394.2 Ops/sec
concat	3505015.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and understand what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to concatenate strings: template literals (using the backtick notation) and the traditional `+` operator.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Template Literals**: This approach uses the backtick (`) notation to insert values into a string. The syntax is `result = backtick notations world`.
2. **Concatenation using `+` Operator**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings. The syntax is `result = "Hello " + world`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Template Literals (interpolation)**:
	+ Pros: More readable, less prone to errors due to string concatenation issues.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient as the traditional `+` operator due to the creation of a new string object.
* **Concatenation using `+` Operator (concat)**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, no overhead from creating a new string object.
	+ Cons: Less readable, more prone to errors due to string concatenation issues.

**Library and Special Features**

There are no libraries being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), so if you're using an older version of JavaScript, this feature might not be available.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is running on a Chrome 90 browser on a Linux desktop platform. This means the results may not be representative of other browsers or platforms.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to string concatenation, here are a few:

1. **String Interpolation using `replace()`**: Instead of using template literals or the `+` operator, you can use the `replace()` method to insert values into a string.
2. **Using a String Builder Library**: There are libraries available that provide a builder pattern for strings, allowing you to efficiently build and concatenate strings.

In conclusion, this benchmark is testing two common approaches to string concatenation in JavaScript: template literals and the traditional `+` operator. The results will help measure which approach is more efficient and readable.

Related benchmarks:

interpolation vs concat (version: 0)

sdfhu

Comparing performance of: inter vs concat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

inter

concat

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):