Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-concatenation-with-interpolation-1

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents a test case that measures the performance difference between three different approaches to string interpolation or concatenation in JavaScript:

1. `string-interpolation`
2. `string-concatenation` (without interpolation)
3. `string-concatenation-with-interpolation`

In this specific benchmark, each approach is tested by generating a random number and then interpolating or concatenating it into a string using the provided syntax.

**Options Compared**

Here are the three options compared in this benchmark:

1. **String Interpolation (`string-interpolation`)**
	* Use template literals (e.g., `SomeString:  your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}`)
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and concise syntax
		+ Can be used with multiple variables
	* Cons:
		+ May have slightly slower performance due to the need to parse the template literals
2. **String Concatenation (`string-concatenation`)**
	* Use the `+` operator to concatenate strings (e.g., `'SomeString: ' + luckyNumber`)
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient, as it avoids the overhead of parsing template literals
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to unreadable code if not used carefully
3. **String Concatenation with Interpolation (`string-concatenation-with-interpolation`)**
	* Use a combination of `+` operator and template literals (e.g., `'SomeString:' + `your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}``)
	* Pros:
		+ Offers a compromise between readability and performance
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as concise or readable as string interpolation

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. The tests are executed in the context of a standard JavaScript environment.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for the benchmark itself (e.g., template literals).

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* **Readability**: If readability is more important than performance, string interpolation might be a better choice.
* **Performance**: If you need to optimize for speed, string concatenation without interpolation might be the way to go.
* **Convenience**: String concatenation with interpolation offers a balance between readability and performance.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **ES6 spread operator (`...`)**: This can be used for simple string interpolation or concatenation.
2. **Function injection**: You can define functions that take variables as arguments and return formatted strings.
3. **String formatting libraries**: Libraries like Moment.js or a custom implementation can provide more advanced formatting options.

Keep in mind that the specific choice of approach depends on your project's requirements, performance constraints, and personal coding style preferences.

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	32115484.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	30769544.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation-with-interpolation	30898936.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-vs-concatenation-with-interpolation-1 (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):