Benchmark: String() vs template literal

Script Preparation code:

var test = 123

Tests:

String()
var result = String(test)
Template literal
var result = `${test}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
Template literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 123 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	5114083.0 Ops/sec
Template literal	15422680.0 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 provided benchmark and its test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a comparison between two approaches: string concatenation using the `+` operator (traditional "String()") and template literals (`${}`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **String()**: This is traditional JavaScript string concatenation using the `+` operator. It creates a new string by appending each value to the original string.
2. **Template Literal**: Template literals are a newer syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) and use variables or values directly.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **String()**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, easy to read for developers familiar with traditional string concatenation.
	+ Cons: creates a new string object on each concatenation, leading to performance overhead due to the creation and garbage collection of these objects.
* **Template Literal**:
	+ Pros: more efficient than `String()`, as it only creates one string object and avoids the overhead of concatenation. Template literals also support interpolation, allowing you to embed expressions directly into strings.
	+ Cons: requires knowledge of template literals syntax, which can be unfamiliar to some developers.

**Library Usage**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark. Both `String()` and template literals are built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals use a special syntax (`${}`) that allows embedding expressions inside the backticks. This syntax is specific to ES6 and was introduced as a replacement for traditional string concatenation with `+`.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to `String()` and template literals, other alternatives could be:

* **Array.prototype.join()**: This method can also be used for string concatenation, although it's less common than the two options tested in this benchmark.
* **Template String (optional)**: Some JavaScript engines have optional support for a template string syntax that is similar to template literals.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance benefits as template literals and may require additional setup or configuration.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs template literal (version: 0)

string concat vs template literals (10 vars)

Comparing performance of: String() vs Template literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

Template literal

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):