Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs template string vs add to string

Tests:

String()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(i)); }
.toString()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i.toString()); }
template string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${i}`); }
add to string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i + ""); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
template string
add to 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 6.3; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/109.0.1518.140

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Windows 8.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	37647.2 Ops/sec
.toString()	555397.2 Ops/sec
template string	897884.3 Ops/sec
add to string	917284.2 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 provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Overview**
The benchmark compares the performance of four different methods for converting numbers to strings:

1. `String()`
2. `.toString()`
3. Template literals (`template string`)
4. String concatenation with the `+` operator (`add to string`)

**What's being tested?**

In each test case, 100 numbers are pushed onto an array using one of the four methods. The benchmark measures how many times each method can be executed per second.

**Options compared**

The options being compared are:

* `String()`: The built-in `String()` function converts a value to a string.
* `.toString()`: The `toString()` method is called on an object or primitive value, converting it to a string.
* Template literals (`template string`): A new way of creating strings using backticks (``) and expressions inside them.
* String concatenation with the `+` operator (`add to string`): The `+` operator is used to concatenate two or more values together.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each method:

* **String()**: Fast and efficient, but can be less readable when used as a function.
* `.toString()`: May incur additional overhead due to the method call, making it slower than `String()` for simple conversions. However, it provides more flexibility and is often used in more complex scenarios.
* **Template literals** (`template string`): Offers improved readability and performance compared to concatenation with `+`. It's a newer feature that has gained popularity in modern JavaScript development.
* **String concatenation with the `+` operator** (`add to string`): The oldest method, which is still widely supported. However, it can be error-prone and slow for large numbers of concatenations.

**Library usage**
In this benchmark, none of the libraries are explicitly used. All tests create an empty array and push values onto it using one of the four methods.

**Special JS features**
There's no mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided explanation. If you're interested in learning more about specific features, feel free to ask!

**Other alternatives**

If you'd like to explore other alternatives, here are a few options:

* **Array.prototype.join()**: Instead of pushing values onto an array and then joining them, you can use `join()` on an empty array.
* **Spread syntax**: You can also use the spread operator (`...`) to create an array from individual values.

Let me know if you have any further questions or if there's anything else I can help with!

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs template string vs add to string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs template string vs add to string

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

template string

add to 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):