Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-concatenation-with-interpolation

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the website MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares three different approaches for string interpolation in JavaScript: concatenation, and concatenation with interpolation.

**Test Case Breakdown**

There are three test cases:

1. **string-interpolation**: This test case uses the interpolation syntax `${luckyNumber}` to insert the value of `luckyNumber` into a string.
2. **string-concatenation**: This test case uses the traditional concatenation method with the `+` operator to join strings and insert the value of `luckyNumber`.
3. **string-concatenation-with-interpolation**: This test case combines the interpolation syntax with the concatenation method, using both `${...}` and `+`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches:

* **Interpolation Syntax (`${...}`)**: This approach uses template literals or string interpolation to insert values into a string.
* **Concatenation Method (`+` operator)**: This approach uses the traditional concatenation method, where strings are joined using the `+` operator.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Interpolation Syntax (`${...}`)**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and efficient.
	+ Cons: may not work as expected in older browsers or with certain string formats.
* **Concatenation Method (`+` operator)**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, easy to understand, and works well with most strings.
	+ Cons: can be less readable, slower than interpolation syntax, and requires more characters.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark. However, template literals are a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The interpolation syntax `${...}` relies on this feature.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative string interpolation methods or concatenation approaches, consider:

* Using other templating engines like Handlebars.js or Pug.
* Investigating CSS template literals, which are similar to JavaScript's but for styling strings.
* Experimenting with different concatenation methods, such as using `join()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	626090752.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	2455544320.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation-with-interpolation	625136768.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-concatenation-with-interpolation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation vs string-concatenation-with-interpolation

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

string-concatenation-with-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):