Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs Concatenation vs Template string

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
Concatenation
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(''+num); }
Template string
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
Concatenation
Template string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares four different methods for converting an integer to a string:

1. `String()`
2. `.toString()`
3. Concatenation (`'' + num`)
4. Template strings (`${num}`)

These methods are used in a loop to generate 100 elements, and the execution speed is measured.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that `String()` and `.toString()` are built-in JavaScript methods, while concatenation and template strings may work differently across browsers or versions.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Template strings (`${num}`) were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow for a more readable way of interpolating variables into string templates. The `'' + num` approach is an older way of concatenating strings using the "+" operator.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show that:

* Template strings (`${num}`) perform the fastest, with an average execution speed of 2374346 executions per second.
* Concatenation (`'' + num`) comes in second, with an average execution speed of 2358853.75 executions per second.
* `.toString()` performs slower than concatenation, with an average execution speed of 803412.5625 executions per second.
* `String()` performs the slowest, with an average execution speed of 66786.21875 executions per second.

**Pros/Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary:

1. **Template strings (`${num}`)**:
	* Pros: Readable, expressive, and efficient.
	* Cons: Requires ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) support.
2. **Concatenation (`'' + num`)**:
	* Pros: Widely supported across browsers and versions.
	* Cons: Less readable and less efficient than template strings.
3. `.toString()`**:
	* Pros: Built-in method, widely supported.
	* Cons: Less efficient than concatenation or template strings.
4. `String()`**:
	* Pros: None.
	* Cons: Slowest among the four options.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting integers to strings include:

1. Using `parseInt(num.toString())` or `parseFloat(num.toString())`, which can lead to performance issues if not done correctly.
2. Using a library like Lodash's `toString()` method, but this would add external dependency and is generally unnecessary.

In conclusion, template strings (`${num}`) are the most efficient way of converting integers to strings in JavaScript, followed by concatenation (`'' + num`). The `.toString()` and `String()` methods perform significantly slower.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	66786.2 Ops/sec
.toString()	803412.6 Ops/sec
Concatenation	2358853.8 Ops/sec
Template string	2374346.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs Concatenation vs Template string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs Concatenation vs Template string

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

Concatenation

Template string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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