<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->/*your preparation JavaScript code goes hereTo execute async code during the script preparation, wrap it as function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction, example:*/async function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction() { // This function is optional, feel free to remove it. // await someThing();}const TEST_ITERATIONS=100000;/*When writing async/deferred tests, use `deferred.resolve()` to mark test as done*/for (let i=0; i++; i<TEST_ITERATIONS) { const stringLiteral = "This is a string without variables or concatting";}for (let i=0; i++; i<TEST_ITERATIONS) { const templateLiteral = `This is a string without variables or concatting`;}--enable-precise-memory-info flag.
| Test case name | Result |
|---|---|
| String literal | |
| Template literal |
| Test name | Executions per second |
|---|---|
| String literal | 45342740.0 Ops/sec |
| Template literal | 42090692.0 Ops/sec |
The provided benchmark focuses on comparing the performance of string literals and template literals in JavaScript. This benchmark assesses whether there is a significant difference in execution speed between the two methods of defining strings.
String Literal:
const stringLiteral = "This is a string without variables or concatting";Template Literal:
const templateLiteral = This is a string without variables or concatting;Pros:
Cons:
Pros:
Cons:
Benchmark Result Analysis: The benchmark results indicate that both string literals and template literals have high executions per second, with string literals being slightly faster in the tested environment (240,626,592 vs 232,897,440 executions per second). The difference in speed might have implications in performance-sensitive applications, though both options are fast.
Browser/Platform Variability: Performance could vary across different browsers and devices. It's essential to consider testing in various environments for a comprehensive analysis.
The benchmark does not utilize any external JavaScript libraries or features beyond basic string handling. The tests fall within the standard capabilities of JavaScript without any external dependencies.
In terms of string processing in JavaScript, other alternatives include:
+ operator to concatenate strings, which is less readable and can be inefficient in terms of performance.new String(), which is generally discouraged because it creates string objects rather than primitive strings and can lead to unintended complications in handling.lodash might be used for more complex string manipulations and templating scenarios.In summary, the benchmark offers valuable insights into the comparative performance of string and template literals, highlighting the trade-offs in simplicity and performance versus enhanced functionality and readability. For developers, the choice between the two depends largely on the specific use case and the need for either performance or advanced string handling features.
