Benchmark: toString vs string template literal

Tests:

toString
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = 100000; const stringFromNumber = number.toString(); }
template literal
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = 100000; const stringFromNumber = `${number}`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
template literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/110.0.1587.41

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString	27987.0 Ops/sec
template literal	303727.5 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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is defined by two scripts that perform similar operations: converting a large number to a string. The difference between the two scripts lies in how they achieve this conversion:

1. `toString`: This script uses the built-in `toString()` method of the JavaScript `Number` type.
2. `template literal`: This script uses template literals, which are a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`).

**Options Compared**
The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Using the `toString()` method**: This is the traditional way of converting numbers to strings in JavaScript.
2. **Using template literals**: This is a newer syntax feature that provides a more concise and expressive way of working with strings.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`toString()` method**:
	+ Pros: Wide browser support, easy to implement, and familiar for many developers.
	+ Cons: May be slower than template literals due to the need to call a separate method on each string literal.
* **Template literals**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive syntax, can provide performance benefits by avoiding the overhead of calling `toString()` or other methods.
	+ Cons: Requires support for ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and later versions.

**Library/Utility**
There is no library or utility specifically mentioned in the benchmark definition. The focus is on comparing two different JavaScript syntax features.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**
The benchmark uses template literals, which are a special feature of JavaScript introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`).

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to compare other methods for converting numbers to strings, such as:

* Using `Number.toString()` and concatenation: `+`
* Using a utility function, like this: `(x) => x.toString()`

These alternatives would be considered if they were part of the original benchmark definition.

In summary, the benchmark compares two options for converting large numbers to strings in JavaScript: using the `toString()` method versus template literals. The results indicate that template literals provide better performance in this specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

toString vs string template literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs template literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

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):