Benchmark: single-quote-vs-double-quote-vs-backtick

Tests:

single-quote
'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.'
double-quote
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
backtick
`Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
single-quote
double-quote
backtick

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different quote types in JavaScript: single quotes, double quotes, and backticks (template literals). The test cases use a long string of text to measure the execution time of assigning each type of quote to a variable.

**Test Case Breakdown**

Each test case has two main components:

1. **Benchmark Definition**: This is the code that defines the benchmark. For each test case, there's only one line of code:
	* Single quotes: `'Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...`
	* Double quotes: `"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..."`
	* Backticks (template literals): ``${"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..."}``

2. **Test Name**: This is the name given to each test case, which corresponds to the type of quote being tested.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution time of assigning each type of quote to a variable using the following options:

* Single quotes (`'...'`)
* Double quotes (`"..."`)
* Backticks (template literals) (``${...}``)

These options are compared in terms of their performance, with the fastest option being declared as the winner.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each option:

* **Single Quotes**: Pros - lightweight, easy to read. Cons - may not be as efficient due to the overhead of parsing the string.
* **Double Quotes**: Pros - widely supported, good for string concatenation. Cons - may lead to quotes within quotes issues.
* **Backticks (Template Literals)**: Pros - concise, modern syntax, and better performance compared to single or double quotes. Cons - relatively new feature, might not be supported by older browsers.

**Library/Function Used**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but template literals rely on the `${}` syntax, which is a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other quote types or comparison benchmarks, here are some alternatives:

* **JSON data**: MeasureThat.net has a benchmark for comparing the performance of different JSON data formats.
* **Regular expressions**: The website has a benchmark for testing the performance of regular expression engines.
* **DOM manipulation**: Another example might be comparing the performance of different DOM manipulation methods (e.g., `document.querySelector()`, `document.getElementsByTagName()`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not directly related to quote types, but rather showcase other aspects of JavaScript performance.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
single-quote	216552624.0 Ops/sec
double-quote	227371120.0 Ops/sec
backtick	217838608.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

single-quote-vs-double-quote-vs-backtick (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: single-quote vs double-quote vs backtick

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

single-quote

double-quote

backtick

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):