Benchmark: 【JiangNanGame】traditional string concat vs template string concat

Script Preparation code:

window.a = Math.random();
window.b = Math.random();
window.c = Math.random();
window.d = Math.random();

Tests:

traditional string concat
let str = ''; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { str = '(' + a + ')' + '(' + b + ')' + '(' + c + ')' + '(' + d + ')' }
template string concat
let str = ''; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { str = `(${a})(${b})(${c})(${d})`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
traditional string concat
template string concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days 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 two approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. **Traditional String Concatenation**
2. **Template String Concatenation**

Both tests use the same script preparation code, which initializes four variables (a, b, c, d) with random values. The difference lies in the way these variables are concatenated into a string.

**Library and Syntax Used**

In this benchmark, the library used is not explicitly mentioned. However, based on the syntax, it appears that the test is using ECMAScript 2015 (ES6+) features, specifically template literals (`backtick syntax`).

Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) to create a string with dynamic values. In this case, `str = `${a}` + `${b}` + `${c}` + `${d}`;` is used.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Traditional String Concatenation**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings, like this: `str = '(' + a + ')' + '(' + b + ')' + '(' + c + ')' + '(' + d + ')';`
2. **Template String Concatenation**: This approach uses template literals (`backtick syntax`) to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Traditional String Concatenation**

Pros:

* Wide browser support (not dependent on ECMAScript features)
* Easy to understand and implement

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues due to the creation of temporary strings
* May not be as readable or maintainable, especially for complex concatenations

**Template String Concatenation**

Pros:

* More expressive and readable code
* Can improve performance by avoiding the creation of temporary strings ( thanks to string interpolation)
* Compatible with ECMAScript features (including modern browsers)

Cons:

* May not work in older browsers that don't support ES6+ features
* Requires more setup and understanding of template literals

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between traditional string concatenation and template string concatenation, consider the following factors:

* Browser compatibility: If you need to support older browsers, traditional string concatenation might be a safer choice.
* Code readability and maintainability: Template string concatenation can make code more expressive and readable, especially for complex concatenations.
* Performance: Template string concatenation can provide better performance by avoiding temporary string creation.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to concatenate strings, consider:

1. **String interpolation**: Similar to template literals, but uses the `toString()` method instead of backticks.
2. **StringBuilder-like libraries**: Such as Lodash's `_.template` function or a custom implementation using a StringBuilder class.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same level of expressiveness and readability as template string concatenation.

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
traditional string concat	1349.8 Ops/sec
template string concat	1442.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

【JiangNanGame】traditional string concat vs template string concat (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: traditional string concat vs template string concat

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

traditional string concat

template string concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):