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.