Benchmark: String casting test

Script Preparation code:

function randstring() {
  const l = Math.ceil(Math.random()*16+5)
  const alphabet = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
  let a = []
  for (let i=0; i<l; i++) {
   	 a.push(alphabet[Math.floor(Math.random()*alphabet.length)])
  }
  
  return a.join("")
}

var strings = []
var numbers = []
var arrays = []
for (let i=0; i<1000; i++) {
 	strings.push(randstring())
    numbers.push(Math.floor(Math.random()*10000))
    arrays.push([
      randstring(),
      Math.floor(Math.random()*10000)
    ])
}
var testdata = [strings, numbers, arrays]

Tests:

String function
let result = testdata.map( (data) => { data.map( (value) => String(value)) })
toString method
let result = testdata.map( (data) => { data.map( (value) => value.toString()) })
Template string
let result = testdata.map( (data) => { data.map( (value) => `${value}`) })
String add
let result = testdata.map( (data) => { data.map( (value) => ""+value) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String function
toString method
Template string
String add

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 its various components.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is designed to compare different methods for string casting in JavaScript. String casting refers to converting a value (e.g., number, array) into a string. The benchmark creates an array of random strings, numbers, and arrays with mixed data types.

**Options Compared:**

1. **`String()` function**: This method converts a value to a string using the `String()` constructor.
2. **`toString()` method**: This is a built-in method that converts a value to a string.
3. **Template strings (`${expression}`)**: A feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015, template strings allow embedding expressions inside string literals.
4. **String addition using the `+` operator (`""+value)`**: This method concatenates two strings using the `+` operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **`String()` function**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported, can handle complex expressions.
	* Cons: May be slower than other methods due to its overhead.
2. **`toString()` method**:
	* Pros: Built-in method, fast execution.
	* Cons: Limited control over the conversion process.
3. **Template strings (`${expression}`)**:
	* Pros: Readable and expressive, can handle complex expressions.
	* Cons: Requires ECMAScript 2015 or later for compatibility.
4. **String addition using the `+` operator (`""+value)`**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if used with non-string values.

**Library Usage:**
None of the benchmark cases use external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**
Template strings are a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. If your JavaScript environment does not support this feature, you may need to use alternative methods (e.g., `String()` function).

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark uses a fixed dataset of random values, which might not be representative of real-world usage.
* The execution speed measurements are based on the number of executions per second, but do not account for other factors like memory allocation or context switching.

**Alternatives:**
If you're interested in exploring alternative methods for string casting, consider the following:

* Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which provide utility functions for working with strings.
* Implementing custom string conversion logic using regex patterns or other techniques.
* Using alternative data structures or formats that don't require explicit string casting.

Keep in mind that the choice of method ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and compatibility constraints.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String function	3217.6 Ops/sec
toString method	10777.5 Ops/sec
Template string	7782.5 Ops/sec
String add	6280.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String casting test (version: 0)

Test which string casting method is fastest

Comparing performance of: String function vs toString method vs Template string vs String add

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

String function

toString method

Template string

String add

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):