Benchmark: Template Literal vs Tagged Template Literal

Script Preparation code:

var literal = (strings, ...values) => strings.reduce(
    (result, text, i) => (result += (text + ((i === strings.length - 1) ? "" : values[i]))), ""
);
var innerText = "This is innerText";

Tests:

Template Literal
var text = `TEXT ${innerText} TEXT`;
Tagged Template Literal
var text = literal`TEXT ${innerText} TEXT`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template Literal
Tagged Template Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to creating template literals in JavaScript:

1. **Template Literal**: This approach uses double backticks (``) to create a template literal, where the contents of the backticks are evaluated as JavaScript expressions.
2. **Tagged Template Literal**: This approach uses single backticks (`) followed by a string or symbol (the "tag") and then the template literal content.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* `Template Literal`: `var text = `TEXT ${innerText} TEXT`;" (double backticks with a simple string interpolation)
* `Tagged Template Literal`: `var text = literal`TEXT ${innerText} TEXT`;" (`single backticks followed by a string/ symbol "tag")

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Template Literal**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to read.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the need for explicit string concatenation or interpolation.
2. **Tagged Template Literal**:
	* Pros: Can provide more control over the template literal syntax, such as using a custom "tag" for specific use cases.
	* Cons: Requires additional setup (defining a function `literal`) and may be less readable than traditional template literals.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these approaches, consider the following:

* **Readability**: Template literals are generally more readable due to their simplicity.
* **Performance**: Tagged template literals can provide better performance if you need fine-grained control over the syntax.
* **Customization**: If you want to create a custom template literal syntax or perform specific operations on the template literal content, tagged template literals might be a better choice.

**Library and Syntax**

The provided benchmark code uses the following JavaScript features:

* `reduce()` (a built-in array method)
* String interpolation (`${innerText}`) using backticks
* Template literals (`var text = ...`)

No additional libraries are used in this example.

**Test Case Interpretation**

Based on the provided test cases, it appears that the benchmark is comparing the performance of:

1. `Template Literal`: Creating a template literal with double backticks and simple string interpolation.
2. `Tagged Template Literal`: Creating a template literal with single backticks followed by a custom "tag" (the `literal` function) and string interpolation.

The test results will likely show which approach has better performance, potentially revealing that `Template Literal` might have a small performance overhead due to the need for explicit string concatenation or interpolation.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to template literals, consider:

* **String.format()`**: A built-in method for formatting strings in JavaScript (only available in ECMAScript 2020+).
* **Internationalization API**: For more complex string formatting and localization tasks.
* **Custom solution**: Implementing a custom string templating engine or library if the standard JavaScript features don't meet your needs.

Please note that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, syntax, or feature sets compared to template literals.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 129 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Template Literal	228453984.0 Ops/sec
Tagged Template Literal	15465986.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Template Literal vs Tagged Template Literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Template Literal vs Tagged Template Literal

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Template Literal

Tagged Template Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):