Benchmark: function vs template literals

Script Preparation code:

function first_f(str){
  return str[0]
}

function first_l(str){
  return str[0][0]
}

Tests:

function
let t=first_f('abcdef')
literal template
let t=first_l`abcdef`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
function
literal template

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.1.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
function	21563618.0 Ops/sec
literal template	13796280.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The website provides a JSON object that defines two JavaScript functions: `first_f` and `first_l`. The purpose of these functions is to extract the first character from a given string. However, there's a difference in how they're implemented:

* `first_f(str)`: This function uses bracket notation (`str[0]`) to access the first character of the input string.
* `first_l(str)`: This function uses template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to extract the first character from the input string: `str[0][0]`.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Function call**: The `first_f` function, which uses bracket notation.
2. **Template literal**: The `first_l` function, which uses template literals to extract the first character.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **Function call (bracket notation)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of calling a function, especially for small strings or character access patterns.
* **Template literal**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster due to optimized string handling in modern browsers. It's also a more expressive way to write code, as it allows for string interpolation and formatting.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported (only introduced in ECMAScript 2015), may require additional setup or imports if used in older environments.

**Library usage**

Neither of the functions uses any external libraries. They are simple, standalone implementations designed specifically for this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The template literal syntax (`str[0][0]`) is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows for more expressive string manipulation and formatting. The `first_l` function uses this syntax to extract the first character from the input string.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Use a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide optimized string extraction functions.
* Implement a custom string parsing algorithm using bitwise operations (e.g., `charCodeAt(0)`, `charAt(0)`).
* Compare the performance of different string extraction methods, such as using an array or a single variable to store the result.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and well-documented example of comparing two approaches: function call vs template literal for extracting the first character from a string.

Related benchmarks:

function vs template literals (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: function vs literal template

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

function

literal template

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):