Benchmark: String(val) vs. val.toString() vs. val?.toString()

Tests:

String(val)
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
val.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
val?.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num?.toString()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String(val)
val.toString()
val?.toString()

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!

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare different approaches for various tasks. In this case, we have three individual test cases: "String(val)", "val.toString()", and "val?.toString()". We'll analyze each test case, explore the pros and cons of different approaches, and discuss any libraries or special features used.

**Test Case 1: String(val)**

In this test case, we're creating an array `nums` and pushing the string representation of a number (`500`) to it, repeated 100 times. The benchmarking code is:

```javascript
let num = 500;
let nums = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
  nums.push(String(num));
}
```

**Approaches**

There are three approaches being compared:

1. **String(val)**: This approach uses the `String()` function to convert the number to a string.
2. **val.toString()**: This approach uses the `toString()` method of the number object.
3. **val?.toString()**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) followed by the `toString()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

* **String(val)**: Pros: simple and easy to read. Cons: may be slower due to the overhead of creating a new string object.
* **val.toString()**: Pros: more efficient than `String(val)` since it doesn't create a new string object. Cons: requires knowledge of number objects' methods.
* **val?.toString()**: Pros: similar efficiency to `val.toString()` but with optional chaining, which can be beneficial for null or undefined values. Cons: may be slower due to the overhead of optional chaining.

**Library/Library Purpose**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this test case. However, it's worth noting that both `String(val)` and `val.toString()` rely on the built-in JavaScript `Number` object and its methods.

**Special Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned explicitly.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or languages for microbenchmarking, here are some alternatives:

* **Bench.js**: A popular benchmarking framework for Node.js.
* **Benchmark.js**: Similar to Bench.js but designed specifically for JavaScript.
* **Google's Benchmark**: A high-performance benchmarking library developed by Google.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, the `String(val)` test case compares three approaches for converting a number to a string: using the `String()` function, the `toString()` method of the number object, and optional chaining with `?.` followed by `toString()`. Each approach has its pros and cons, and understanding these can help you optimize your code for performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String(val)	182272.8 Ops/sec
val.toString()	1965289.9 Ops/sec
val?.toString()	1299561.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String(val) vs. val.toString() vs. val?.toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String(val) vs val.toString() vs val?.toString()

Created: 4 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String(val)

val.toString()

val?.toString()

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):