Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals (2)

Script Preparation code:

var a = 'a';
var b = 'b';

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let val = a + '+' + b + '=c' }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let val = `${a}+${b}=c` }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using template literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's tested in the provided benchmark and discuss the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of concatenating four strings using two different approaches:

1. The `+` operator (using string addition)
2. Template literals (`${...}`)

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two main options:

* **Using the `+` operator**: This approach uses the string addition syntax to concatenate the strings. For example: `let val = a + '+' + b + '=c'`.
* **Using template literals**: This approach uses the template literal syntax to concatenate the strings. For example: `let val = ${a}+${b}=c`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Using the `+` operator:**

Pros:

* Wide compatibility: The `+` operator is supported by most browsers and JavaScript engines.
* Simple implementation: The code is easy to write and understand.

Cons:

* Performance overhead: String addition can lead to performance issues, especially for large strings or frequent concatenations.
* Limited control over formatting: The resulting string may not have the desired format.

**Using template literals:**

Pros:

* Improved performance: Template literals are optimized for fast string manipulation and concatenation.
* Better control over formatting: The syntax allows for more flexible and readable code.

Cons:

* Compatibility issues: Some older browsers or JavaScript engines might not support template literals.
* Steeper learning curve: Understanding the template literal syntax can take time for some developers.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), so if a developer needs to support older browsers or JavaScript engines, they may need to use a polyfill or alternative approach.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Template literals are a special syntax in JavaScript, introduced in ES6. They allow for more readable and expressive string manipulation using the `${}` syntax. The benchmark uses this syntax to test its performance compared to the `+` operator.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider:

* **Consistency**: Ensure that the benchmarking code is consistent in its implementation details.
* **Reliability**: Verify that the benchmarking results are accurate and reliable, taking into account any potential sources of error or bias.
* **Relevance**: Make sure that the benchmarked scenario is relevant to the use case or problem being addressed.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string concatenation in JavaScript include:

* **String concatenation using dot notation**: `let val = a + b;` (not used in this benchmark)
* **Using a library like Lodash's template literals**: `_.template('a+b=c')(a, b)` (not used in this benchmark)

These alternatives may offer performance benefits or additional features, but they might also introduce compatibility issues or increased complexity.

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

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	85510.0 Ops/sec
using template literals	83996.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals (2) (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using template literals

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using template literals

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):