Benchmark: 'a string`.toString() vs `${'a string'}`

Script Preparation code:

var a = 'a string'

Tests:

a.toString()
a.toString()
`${a}`
`${a}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a.toString()
`${a}`

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
a.toString()	155476176.0 Ops/sec
`${a}`	182626928.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different ways of converting a string to an upper case using the `toString()` method and template literals (`${'a string'}`).

**Options Being Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`a.toString()`**: This option uses the `toString()` method on a string literal.
2. **`${'a string'}`**: This option uses template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to convert the string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`a.toString()`**:
	* Pros: Generally faster, as `toString()` is a built-in method that doesn't require additional parsing or compilation.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or intuitive for developers who are not familiar with it.
2. **`${'a string'}`**:
	* Pros: More readable and easier to understand than the `toString()` approach, especially for developers familiar with template literals.
	* Cons: May be slower due to additional parsing and compilation required by the template literal syntax.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no external libraries being used in this benchmark, only standard JavaScript features.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two options, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your project and the trade-offs you're willing to make. If performance is critical, `a.toString()` might be a better choice. However, if readability and maintainability are more important, `${'a string'}` might be a better option.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting strings to upper case include:

* Using the `toUpperCase()` method directly on the string: `a.toUpperCase()`
* Using a library like Lodash's `upperCase` function
* Using an external template engine like Handlebars or Mustache

However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of performance as the `toString()` and template literal approaches.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JavaScript code snippet:
```javascript
var a = 'a string';
```
Prepares a variable `a` with the value `'a string'`.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Related benchmarks:

'a string`.toString() vs `${'a string'}` (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a.toString() vs `${a}`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a.toString()

`${a}`

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):