Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-2.1

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);

Tests:

string-interpolation
`${luckyNumber}`
string-concatenation
luckyNumber
string-funtion
luckyNumber.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
string-concatenation
string-funtion

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided benchmark compares three approaches for string concatenation/interpolation in JavaScript:

1. **String Interpolation** (`${luckyNumber}`): This approach uses template literals to insert the value of `luckyNumber` into a string.
2. **String Concatenation** (e.g., `luckyNumber`): This approach uses the traditional dot notation or bracket notation to concatenate strings with values.
3. **String Function** (`luckyNumber.toString()`): This approach converts the number to a string using the `toString()` method.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**String Interpolation**

Pros:

* Concise and readable syntax
* Performance is often comparable to or better than traditional concatenation

Cons:

* Can be less efficient due to template literal parsing overhead
* Some older browsers may not support template literals

**String Concatenation**

Pros:

* Wide browser support (even in older browsers)
* Simple syntax for simple cases

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues when dealing with large numbers of concatenations or complex strings
* Error-prone if not used carefully (e.g., type mismatches)

**String Function**

Pros:

* Converts numbers to strings, which can be useful in certain situations
* Wide browser support

Cons:

* Adds unnecessary overhead due to method call and string conversion
* Less readable syntax compared to interpolation or concatenation

Regarding libraries, the benchmark does not use any external libraries. However, if you're interested in exploring other approaches using libraries, some examples include:

* **Lodash**: Offers various string manipulation functions, including `string.prototype.concat()`, `string.prototype.template()`, and `lodash.string.interpolate()`.
* **Underscore.js**: Provides the `_.template()` function for creating templates.
* **String-Promise**: A library that allows you to write promises-based code for string concatenation.

Regarding special JavaScript features or syntax, this benchmark uses:

* **Template literals** (introduced in ECMAScript 2015): A new way of embedding expressions inside strings using the backtick symbol (`).
* **Arrow functions** (not explicitly used here but implied by the use of `TestName` property): Arrow functions are a concise way to define small, single-expression functions.

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives or variations on these approaches, feel free to ask!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/108.0.1462.54

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	11862364.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	11023473.0 Ops/sec
string-funtion	10373762.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-2.1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation vs string-funtion

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

string-funtion

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):