Benchmark: Concatenation vs Interpolation 18239712aisdofaseifjasl

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Concatenation
var text = "String one lucky number: " + luckyNumber + " lucky number 2: " + luckyNumber;
Interpolation
var test = `String one lucky number: ${luckyNumber} lucky number 2: ${luckyNumber}`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Concatenation
Interpolation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines two test cases: Concatenation and Interpolation. The `Name` field provides a descriptive name for the benchmark, while the `Description` field is empty in this case.

The `Script Preparation Code` section specifies a JavaScript code snippet that is executed before running each test case:
```javascript
var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
```
This code generates a random number between 0 and 99 using the `Math.random()` function, which is then rounded to the nearest integer.

The `Html Preparation Code` section is empty, meaning no HTML code is generated for these benchmarks.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case has two fields:

*   `Benchmark Definition`: This field specifies the actual JavaScript code that performs the concatenation or interpolation.
*   `Test Name`: A descriptive name for each test case.

There are two test cases: Concatenation and Interpolation.

1.  **Concatenation**:

```javascript
var text = "String one lucky number: " + luckyNumber + " lucky number 2: " + luckyNumber;
```
    In this code snippet, the `+` operator is used for concatenation to join two strings together.

2.  **Interpolation**:

```
var test = `String one lucky number: ${luckyNumber} lucky number 2: ${luckyNumber}`;
```

Here, backticks (`) are used instead of single quotes to enable template literals, which allows for string interpolation with the `$` symbol.

**Library and Features Used**

*   The `Math.random()` function is a built-in JavaScript function that returns a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive).
    *   It's considered a standard feature of JavaScript.

**Benchmarks Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of concatenation using the `+` operator with string interpolation using template literals. Both approaches are simple, yet effective methods for building dynamic strings in JavaScript.

Pros:

*   Concatenation (`+`) is straightforward and widely supported across different browsers.
    *   However, repeated string concatenations can lead to poor performance due to the overhead of creating temporary strings.
*   Template literals (backticks with `$` interpolation) provide a more concise way to build dynamic content without generating unnecessary intermediate results.

Cons:

*   Although template literals are efficient for simple cases, their use might lead to code bloat or decreased readability in certain situations.
*   Concatenation is generally more forgiving and easier to understand than interpolation, especially when working with non-ASCII characters or complex formatting requirements.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results provide insight into the performance differences between concatenation and template literals on a specific device:

| Test Name | Executions Per Second |
| --- | --- |
| Concatenation | 1054328768.0 |
| Interpolation | 167577072.0 |

In this example, the template literal approach outperforms the traditional concatenation method.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for string manipulation, here are a few options:

*   **String.prototype.split() and join():** You can use `split()` to split your original string into an array of substrings, then apply transformations to each substring using array methods like `map()` or `forEach()`. Finally, concatenate the modified substrings with `join()`.
*   **`includes()` method:** When working with modern browsers that support the `includes()` method (from ECMAScript 2019), you can use it instead of concatenation or interpolation for string matching.
*   **Native string manipulation functions:** Depending on your specific use case, native JavaScript functions like `String.prototype.replace()`, `String.prototype.slice()`, or `String.prototype.substring()` may be more suitable than template literals.

Keep in mind that while these alternatives might offer different benefits, they often come with trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, or compatibility across various browsers and environments.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/90.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 90 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Concatenation	1054328768.0 Ops/sec
Interpolation	167577072.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Concatenation vs Interpolation 18239712aisdofaseifjasl (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Concatenation vs Interpolation

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Concatenation

Interpolation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):