Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-for-inline-style

HTML Preparation code:

<div style="display: flex;">
  <div id="first" style="flex-grow: 0; flex-shrink: 0; flex-basis: 200px;" />
  <div id="second" style="flex-grow: 0; flex-shrink: 0; flex-basis: 200px;" />
</div>

Script Preparation code:

var size = Math.round(0 + Math.random() * 1800);
var el = document.querySelector("#first");

Tests:

string-interpolation
el.style.flexBasis = `${size}px`;
string-concatenation
el.style.flexBasis = size + "px";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
string-concatenation

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; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	851204.8 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	865516.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to set the `flexBasis` style property of an HTML element: string interpolation and concatenation with the `+` operator.

**String Interpolation**

In this approach, a template literal (`${size}px`) is used to insert the value of `size` into the string. This is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows embedding expressions inside strings.

The pros of using string interpolation are:

* Readability: The code looks more concise and readable, as the expression is directly embedded in the string.
* Performance: String interpolation can be faster than concatenation because it avoids creating intermediate strings.

However, there are some potential cons to consider:

* Browser support: While string interpolation is widely supported in modern browsers, older browsers might not have it implemented correctly or at all. In this benchmark, the test is run on Firefox 117, which supports it.
* Security: If you're using a user-input value for `size`, be aware that it can lead to security vulnerabilities if not properly sanitized.

**String Concatenation**

In this approach, the `+` operator is used to concatenate the string with the value of `size`. This involves creating an intermediate string and then assigning it to the `flexBasis` property.

The pros of using string concatenation are:

* Older browser support: The `+` operator has been around for much longer than template literals, so this approach should work on older browsers that don't support string interpolation.
* Easy implementation: This is a straightforward way to concatenate strings, and many developers may be more comfortable with it.

However, there are some potential cons to consider:

* Performance: Concatenation can lead to performance issues if the values being concatenated are large or if you're doing this operation frequently. In this benchmark, the test is focused on inline styles, so the impact should be minimal.
* Readability: The code might look less readable than using string interpolation.

**Other Considerations**

It's worth noting that modern browsers tend to optimize string concatenation and interpolation for performance, so in many cases, the difference between these two approaches will be negligible. However, this benchmark is likely designed to highlight any potential differences in behavior or performance between older and newer browsers.

As for other alternatives, there are a few:

* Using `el.style.flexBasis = size.toString() + 'px';` (using the `toString()` method to convert `size` to a string) would achieve similar results to concatenation but with slightly better readability.
* Using `el.style.flexBasis = `${Math.floor(size)}px`;` (using `Math.floor()` to truncate the value of `size`) would use another feature introduced in ES6, this time for rounding the size to an integer.

These alternatives are not part of the original benchmark but demonstrate how different approaches can be used to achieve similar results.

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-for-inline-style (version: 0)

-

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

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):