Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-toString-vs-plus-string

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

string-interpolation
` ${luckyNumber}`
toSstring
luckyNumber.toString()
+
'' + luckyNumber

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
toSstring
+

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript: string interpolation, `toString()`, and the "+" operator (also known as the concatenation operator).

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **string-interpolation**: This test case uses template literals with a variable (`luckyNumber`) inside the backticks (` `` ). The idea is to measure how fast this syntax can be executed.
2. **toSstring**: This test case calls the `toString()` method on the `luckyNumber` variable. This is a built-in JavaScript method that converts a number to a string.
3. **+**: This test case uses the "+" operator ( concatenation operator) to concatenate two strings, one of which is the result of calling `toString()` on `luckyNumber`.

**Library and Special Features**

None of the test cases rely on any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond what's built into the browser.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different string concatenation methods:

* **string-interpolation**: uses template literals with variables inside backticks (` `` )
* **toSstring**: calls the `toString()` method on a number variable
* **+**: uses the "+" operator (concatenation operator) to concatenate two strings

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

* **string-interpolation**:
	+ Pros: concise, expressive syntax; can be more readable for complex string templates.
	+ Cons: may incur overhead due to template parsing and evaluation.
* **toSstring**: This method is straightforward and easy to understand. However, it's a method call, which might involve some overhead compared to the other two options.
* **+**:
	+ Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: can lead to code duplication (e.g., `a + 'hello'` instead of `a.concat('hello')`) and may not be as readable for complex concatenations.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing a string concatenation method, consider the trade-off between performance, readability, and maintainability. If you need to concatenate simple strings, the "+" operator is usually sufficient. For more complex templates or when performance matters, template literals with variables (like in `string-interpolation`) might be a better choice.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative string concatenation methods, consider:

* **`+` operator**: As mentioned earlier, this is a simple and efficient way to concatenate strings.
* **`concat()` method**: This method is similar to the "+" operator but can be more readable when used with object literals (e.g., `obj.a.concat('hello')`).
* **String concatenation using spread operators (`...`)**: This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 and allows for string interpolation using variables (e.g., `'hello ${name}'`). While not as widely supported as template literals, it's a concise alternative.
* **`immer` or other state management libraries**: These libraries provide more advanced string manipulation features, such as immutable strings, but are typically used in specific contexts (e.g., data-driven applications).

Keep in mind that the choice of concatenation method ultimately depends on your project's requirements and personal preference.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	8134295.0 Ops/sec
toSstring	8224283.0 Ops/sec
+	8230297.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-toString-vs-plus-string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs toSstring vs +

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

toSstring

+

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):