Benchmark: Explicit vs Implicit convertion

Script Preparation code:

var n = 1;
var res;

Tests:

Explicit conversion
res = String(n);
Implicit conversion
res = n + "";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Explicit conversion
Implicit conversion

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. **Implicit Conversion**: `res = n + ""` (note the double quotes)
2. **Explicit Conversion**: `res = String(n)` (using the built-in `String()` function)

**What's being tested?**

In both cases, a variable `n` is assigned the value `1`. The difference lies in how this assignment is written:

* In the **Implicit Conversion** test case, the double quotes (`""`) are used, which allows the JavaScript interpreter to implicitly convert the numeric literal `1` to a string.
* In the **Explicit Conversion** test case, the `String()` function is explicitly called, making it clear that the intention is to convert the number `1` to a string.

**Pros and Cons**

**Implicit Conversion:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Can be faster because it avoids the overhead of a function call

Cons:

* May lead to unexpected behavior if the developer is not aware of the implicit conversion
* Can make the code harder to debug and maintain

**Explicit Conversion:**

Pros:

* Clearly communicates the intention of converting a value to a string
* Easier to debug and maintain because there's no room for ambiguity

Cons:

* More verbose code
* May be slower due to the overhead of the function call

**Library and Special Features**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of implicit conversion can lead to issues with certain libraries or frameworks that rely on explicit string conversions.

No special JavaScript features are used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for explicit string conversion include using template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) like `res = n + '';` or using a library function like `String(n)` (although the latter is not necessary here).

It's also worth noting that some linters and code analyzers may flag implicit conversions as potential issues, so developers should be aware of these tools when writing their code.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes two variables: `var n = 1;` and `var res;`. The variable `n` is initialized with the value `1`, while `res` remains uninitialized. This setup allows for a straightforward comparison between implicit and explicit conversion methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/98.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Explicit conversion	333614048.0 Ops/sec
Implicit conversion	353912576.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Explicit vs Implicit convertion (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Explicit conversion vs Implicit conversion

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Explicit conversion

Implicit conversion

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):