Benchmark: Kurwa Mac - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var gallery = 0;

Tests:

String Concat
var test = "<div class='embed-wrapper'><div class='embed-color-pill cat-"+gallery+"'></div><div class='embed'><table><tr><td colspan='2'><div><a class='embed-provider linkIgnore' href='https://exhentai.org/' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer'>ExHentai</a></div><div><a class='embed-title linkIgnore' href='https://exhentai.org/g/"+gallery+"/"+gallery+"/' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer'>"+gallery+"</a>"+(gallery ? " <span class='custom_warning'>(Expunged)</span>": "")+"</div></td></tr><tr><td><div><img class='image gallery_preview' src='"+gallery+"'></div></td><td><table class='gallery_info'><tr><td>Category:</td><td class='desc cat-"+gallery+"'>"+gallery+"</td></tr><tr><td>Rating:</td><td class='desc'>"+gallery+"</td></tr><tr><td>Images:</td><td class='desc'>"+gallery+"</td></tr><tr><td>Uploaded:</td><td class='desc'>"+new Date(gallery*1000).toLocaleString("en-GB")+"</td></tr><tr><td>Tags:</td><td class='tags'>"+gallery_tags+"</td></tr><tr><td>Size:</td><td class='desc'>"+gallery_size+"</td></tr><tr><td>Torrent:</td><td class='desc'><a class='linkIgnore' href='https://exhentai.org/gallerytorrents.php?gid="+gallery+"&t="+gallery+"' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer'>Search</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></div></div>"
Template Literals
var test = `<div class='embed-wrapper'><div class='embed-color-pill cat-${gallery}'></div><div class='embed'><table><tr><td colspan='2'><div><a class='embed-provider linkIgnore' href='https://exhentai.org/' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer'>ExHentai</a></div><div><a class='embed-title linkIgnore' href='https://exhentai.org/g/${gallery}/${gallery}/' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer'>${gallery}</a>"+(gallery ? " <span class='custom_warning'>(Expunged)</span>": "")+"</div></td></tr><tr><td><div><img class='image gallery_preview' src='${gallery}'></div></td><td><table class='gallery_info'><tr><td>Category:</td><td class='desc cat-${gallery}'>${gallery}</td></tr><tr><td>Rating:</td><td class='desc'>${gallery}</td></tr><tr><td>Images:</td><td class='desc'>${gallery}</td></tr><tr><td>Uploaded:</td><td class='desc'>"+new Date(gallery*1000).toLocaleString("en-GB")+"</td></tr><tr><td>Tags:</td><td class='tags'>"+gallery_tags+"</td></tr><tr><td>Size:</td><td class='desc'>"+gallery_size+"</td></tr><tr><td>Torrent:</td><td class='desc'><a class='linkIgnore' href='https://exhentai.org/gallerytorrents.php?gid=${gallery}&t=${gallery}' target='_blank' rel='noreferrer'>Search</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></div></div>`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String Concat
Template Literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript approaches is crucial for optimizing code and ensuring compatibility across various browsers and environments.

The provided benchmark definition and test cases are designed to measure the performance of two popular JavaScript string concatenation methods:

1. **String Concat**: This approach involves concatenating strings using the `+` operator.
2. **Template Literals**: This approach uses template literals, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which provide a more readable and efficient way to concatenate strings.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

* **String Concat**: The traditional way of concatenating strings using the `+` operator.
* **Template Literals**: A newer approach introduced in ES6 that provides a more expressive and efficient way to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons**

### String Concat

Pros:

* Widely supported across different browsers and versions
* Easy to understand and implement, even for developers without experience with modern JavaScript features
* Works well with strings of varying lengths

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues when dealing with large numbers of concatenations or complex string manipulation
* May introduce security vulnerabilities if not used carefully (e.g., using `eval()`)

### Template Literals

Pros:

* More readable and maintainable code, as it allows for expressions within the string
* Faster execution time compared to String Concat, especially for large strings
* Less prone to errors due to its syntax-based nature

Cons:

* May not be supported in older browsers or versions (though modern browsers have largely adopted ES6+ features)
* Requires knowledge of ES6+ syntax and features

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark definition, there is no explicit mention of any external libraries being used. However, it's worth noting that the `gallery` variable, which appears in both test cases, is likely a user-provided value or a hardcoded constant.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6+ features such as template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and arrow functions (though not explicitly used in this example).

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of two string concatenation methods: traditional `String Concat` using the `+` operator and Template Literals, a newer approach introduced in ES6. While String Concat is widely supported and easy to understand, Template Literals offer faster execution time and more readable code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

* **String.prototype.concat()**: This method concatenates strings using the `concat()` function, which may be more efficient than the traditional `+` operator.
* **Function composition**: You can use function composition to create more complex string manipulations, potentially leading to faster execution times or improved readability.
* **ES7+ features**: If you're working with modern browsers and versions, consider using ES7+ features like `String.prototype.includes()` or `template literals' expressions` for more expressive string manipulation.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and coding style preferences.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Mac OS X 10.13.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String Concat	0.0 Ops/sec
Template Literals	982434.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Kurwa Mac (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String Concat vs Template Literals

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String Concat

Template Literals

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):