Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs template string (optim)

Tests:

String()
let nums = new Array(100); for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(i)); }
.toString()
let nums = new Array(100); for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i.toString()); }
template string
let nums = new Array(100); for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${i}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
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.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to convert an integer to a string:

1. Using the `String()` function
2. Using the `.toString()` method
3. Using template literals (with the `${}` syntax)

**Options comparison**

The options are compared in terms of execution speed, which is measured by the number of executions per second.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **`String()`**: This function creates a new string object using the `new String(i)` constructor. While it may seem like an older way to convert numbers to strings, it's still a valid method in modern JavaScript. However, creating a new string object can be slower than other methods.
	* Pros: Easy to understand and use, works for all browsers.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the creation of a new string object.
2. **`.toString()`**: This method is built-in to the Number type in JavaScript and returns the string representation of the number. It's generally faster than creating a new string object.
	* Pros: Fast, uses built-in method, works for all browsers.
	* Cons: May not be as intuitive or easy to understand for some developers.
3. **Template literals**: Template literals are a relatively recent addition to JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using the `${}` syntax.
	* Pros: Fast, uses a built-in method, works for all browsers, and is often more readable than traditional string concatenation.
	* Cons: Requires support for ES6 features, may not be supported by older browsers.

**Library usage**

None of these approaches use any external libraries. They are all built-in or part of the JavaScript language.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

Template literals use a special syntax (`${}`) that is not commonly used in other contexts. However, it's widely accepted and used in modern web development.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these approaches with alternative methods, here are some options:

1. Using `Number.toString()` instead of `.toString()`
2. Using a custom function to convert numbers to strings (e.g., using the `+` operator or the `Math.floor` method)
3. Using a library like Lodash's `toNumberString` function
4. Using a different language or platform-specific string conversion mechanism (if applicable)

Keep in mind that some of these alternatives might not be as widely supported or used as the built-in methods mentioned earlier.

In summary, the benchmark compares three approaches to convert integers to strings: `String()`, `.toString()`, and template literals. Each approach has its pros and cons, with template literals being a fast, modern, and often more readable option.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/129.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	84742.5 Ops/sec
.toString()	979431.6 Ops/sec
template string	1431815.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs template string (optim) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs template string

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

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):