Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-contatination-with-nested-interpolation

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);

Tests:

string-interpolation
`SomeString: your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}`
contatination-with-nested-interpolation
'SomeString:' + `your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
contatination-with-nested-interpolation

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring the performance difference between string interpolation and concatenation with nested interpolation in JavaScript. Here's an explanation of what's being tested:

**String Interpolation**

In this approach, JavaScript uses a syntax called template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to insert values into strings. The `${}` syntax is used to enclose the value that should be inserted.

Example:
```javascript
const luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
const result = `SomeString: your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}`;
```
In this case, the template literal creates a new string object with the specified values inserted at the corresponding positions.

**Concatenation with Nested Interpolation**

In this approach, JavaScript uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings. This method requires careful handling of nested interpolations using curly braces (`{}`) and `${}` syntax.

Example:
```javascript
const luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
const result = 'SomeString:' + 'your lucky number for today is: ' + `${luckyNumber}`;
```
In this case, the `+` operator concatenates the three strings together, but also injects the nested interpolation using `${}`.

**Pros and Cons**

**String Interpolation (Template Literals)**

Pros:

* More readable code
* Faster performance due to optimized compilation
* Reduced risk of errors caused by incorrect usage of curly braces

Cons:

* Limited support in older browsers (pre-ECMAScript 2015)
* Requires explicit declaration of template literals (e.g., `let result = `${...}`;`)

**Concatenation with Nested Interpolation**

Pros:

* Wide compatibility across browsers
* Simplifies code for simple interpolation cases

Cons:

* Less readable code due to concatenation and nested interpolations
* Slower performance due to string creation and manipulation overhead
* More error-prone due to incorrect usage of curly braces or order of operations

**Library: String.prototype.interpolate()**

In modern JavaScript, the `String.prototype.interpolate()` method is a part of the ECMAScript standard. This method provides an alternative way to perform interpolation using a syntax similar to template literals.

Example:
```javascript
const luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
const result = 'SomeString: your lucky number for today is: '.interpolate(luckyNumber);
```
This method is used in some JavaScript libraries, such as Lodash, but it's not part of the standard library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no specific features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other advanced topics like async/await, promises, or modern JavaScript features, there are many resources available online.

**Other Alternatives**

For measuring performance differences between string interpolation and concatenation, the following alternatives can be used:

1. Microbenchmarking libraries: There are several microbenchmarking libraries available for JavaScript, such as ` Benchmark.js`, `Benchmarkify`, and `fast-benchmark`. These libraries provide a simple way to write performance tests.
2. WebPageTest: A tool specifically designed for web performance testing, including page load times and resource usage analysis.
3. Browser-specific performance testing tools: Each browser has its own set of performance testing tools, such as Chrome DevTools' "Performance" tab.

By using these alternatives, you can write your own benchmarks or test specific use cases to compare the performance of different string interpolation methods.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	15381358.0 Ops/sec
contatination-with-nested-interpolation	14655409.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-contatination-with-nested-interpolation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs contatination-with-nested-interpolation

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

contatination-with-nested-interpolation

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):