Benchmark: String vs '' - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

String
const a = 1; const b = String(a);
""
const a = 1; const b = "" + a;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String
""

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is quite simple, with only two test cases:

* `const a = 1; const b = String(a);`: This test case creates a constant `a` with value `1`, then creates another constant `b` by converting `a` to a string using the `String()` function.
* `const a = 1; const b = "" + a;`: This test case creates a constant `a` with value `1`, then creates another constant `b` by concatenating an empty string (`""`) with `a`.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. **Using the `String()` function**: This approach uses the `String()` function to explicitly convert the number `1` to a string.
2. **Using the concatenation operator (`+`) with an empty string**: This approach uses the concatenation operator (`+`) to concatenate the empty string (`""`) with the number `1`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Using the `String()` function:**

Pros:

* Clear intent: The code explicitly shows that the intention is to convert a value to a string.
* No ambiguity: There's no risk of misunderstanding the type conversion.

Cons:

* Overhead: Converting a primitive value like `1` to a string using `String()` might incur some overhead, depending on the JavaScript engine and version.

**Using the concatenation operator (`+`) with an empty string:**

Pros:

* Efficient: Concatenating strings is generally more efficient than converting numbers to strings.
* Readability: Some developers find this approach more readable, as it's a common way to concatenate strings in many programming languages.

Cons:

* Ambiguity: There's a risk that the reader might not understand that an empty string is being concatenated with the number `1`, leading to potential type conversion issues.

**Library Used**

In the first test case (`String()`), no library is explicitly used. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines (like V8) have optimized `String()` function calls for performance benefits.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches, here are a few alternatives:

* Using template literals (`${a}`): This approach uses template literals to embed expressions inside strings. While it's a modern feature, it might not be supported in older browsers.
* Using `String.fromCharCode()`: This approach converts the number `1` to a string using the `String.fromCharCode()` function, which returns a string representing a character.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own set of pros and cons, and might not change the outcome of this specific benchmark.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String	6731903.5 Ops/sec
""	1115397376.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String vs '' (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String vs ""

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String

""

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):