Benchmark: Implicit vs Explicit .toString()

Tests:

Explicit
var a = 10; a.toString();
Implicit
var a = 10 + "";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Explicit
Implicit

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 break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of implicit and explicit string conversion in JavaScript. The benchmark is designed to measure how fast the browser can execute a certain code snippet, which involves converting an integer value to a string using two different approaches: explicit `toString()` method call or implicit string concatenation.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Explicit `.toString()`**: This approach uses the `toString()` method explicitly to convert the integer value to a string.
2. **Implicit string concatenation**: In this approach, an empty string (`""`)) is concatenated with the integer value using the `+` operator, effectively converting the integer to a string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **Explicit `.toString()`**:
	+ Pros: More readable code, explicit intent clear.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to method call, slower performance compared to implicit concatenation.
* **Implicit string concatenation**:
	+ Pros: Faster performance, no additional overhead due to method call.
	+ Cons: Less readable code, may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that both approaches are part of the standard JavaScript language and don't require any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature of modern JavaScript: template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). Although not explicitly mentioned, this is implied by the use of single quotes (`'...'`) in the `Benchmark Definition` JSON. Template literals provide a concise way to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Other alternatives**

For measuring performance and benchmarking JavaScript code, you might consider using:

* **Bench.js**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library that provides more features and configuration options than MeasureThat.net.
* **JBM (JavaScript Benchmark)**: Another widely-used benchmarking framework for JavaScript, offering more advanced features like multi-threaded benchmarks and support for additional platforms.
* **js-perf**: A simple, lightweight benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring performance in JavaScript environments.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and MeasureThat.net might be suitable for a specific use case or audience.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/128.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Explicit	130211208.0 Ops/sec
Implicit	236800672.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Implicit vs Explicit .toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Explicit vs Implicit

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Explicit

Implicit

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):