Benchmark: String vs toString

Script Preparation code:

var shit = [1, 6001, "test name", 3.73625141, 4, 30];

Tests:

toString
shit.toString()
String
String(shit)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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
toString	3927132.5 Ops/sec
String	2321218.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this particular benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to convert a JavaScript value to a string: `toString()` and `String()`. The test case uses an array `shit` with various data types, including numbers (`1`, `6001`), strings (`"test name"`), and a float number (`3.73625141`). The goal is to measure the performance difference between these two methods.

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`toString()`**: This method converts its argument to a string using the built-in `toString()` function.
2. **`String()`**: This method converts its argument to a string by calling the `String()` constructor with the input value as an argument.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **`toString()`**: Pros:
	+ Widely supported and implemented in most browsers.
	+ Generally faster, as it uses built-in functions that are optimized for performance.
Cons:
	+ May not provide the exact string representation desired, especially for complex data types.
* **`String()`**: Pros:
	+ Provides a more explicit conversion process, which can be beneficial for debugging or logging purposes.
Cons:
	+ Less supported and implemented in some browsers, as it's a custom function.
	+ Generally slower due to the overhead of creating a new object.

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases explicitly uses any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that `toString()` is built-in and should be supported by all modern JavaScript engines, while `String()` requires an implementation or extension for browsers without native support.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both `toString()` and `String()` methods are standard, widely implemented functions in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives:**

In addition to the two tested approaches, other string conversion methods might be available depending on the context:

* Using template literals (`"${value}"`): This approach can provide a more readable way of converting values to strings, especially for debugging or logging purposes.
* Implementing custom string conversion functions (e.g., `myStringFunction(value)`): This approach would require a custom implementation but could potentially offer more control over the string representation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be supported by all browsers or JavaScript engines and may have varying performance characteristics compared to `toString()` and `String()`.

Related benchmarks:

String vs toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs String

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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