Benchmark: test performance of string type with interpolation

Script Preparation code:

var name = "Oatmeal";

Tests:

single quotes
'hi I\'m a peanut whose name is ' + name;
double quotes
"hi I'm a peanut whose name is " + name;
backticks
`hi I'm a peanut whose name is ${name}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
single quotes
double quotes
backticks

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition is a simple script preparation code that declares a variable `name` with a string value `"Oatmeal"`. There are no other variables or functions defined in this scope. The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that no HTML content is generated by this script.

In general, a benchmark like this tests the performance of JavaScript's string type and interpolation features.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code `var name = "Oatmeal";` declares a variable `name` with a string value `"Oatmeal"`. This is a basic example of declaring a variable in JavaScript.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is empty, which means that no HTML content is generated by this script. If the benchmark were testing HTML generation, this would be an important aspect to consider.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Single Quotes**
The benchmark definition `hi I'm a peanut whose name is ' + name;` uses single quotes for string interpolation. This is a basic example of using template literals in JavaScript.
2. **Double Quotes**
The benchmark definition `\"hi I'm a peanut whose name is \" + name;` uses double quotes for string interpolation. Note that the backslash before the double quote is necessary to escape it, since JavaScript would otherwise interpret it as the end of the string.
3. **Backticks (Template Literals)**
The benchmark definition `hi I'm a peanut whose name is ${name}` uses backticks (also known as template literals). This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Comparison of Options**

Here's a comparison of the options:

* **Single Quotes**: Uses single quotes for string interpolation. Can be prone to issues if not used carefully, as it can lead to confusion between string concatenation and interpolation.
* **Double Quotes**: Uses double quotes for string interpolation. Requires escaping with backslashes or other methods to avoid issues.
* **Backticks (Template Literals)**: Uses backticks to define template literals. This feature is designed to provide a safe and readable way to interpolate strings.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each option:

* **Single Quotes**:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to read, but can lead to issues if not used carefully.
	+ Cons: Can be prone to errors, especially for those new to template literals.
* **Double Quotes**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported and understood, but requires escaping with backslashes or other methods.
	+ Cons: Can become cumbersome to read and write, especially for longer strings.
* **Backticks (Template Literals)**:
	+ Pros: Safe and readable way to interpolate strings, designed to avoid common issues with string concatenation and interpolation.
	+ Cons: Requires support for template literals in older browsers and versions of JavaScript.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of backticks (template literals) is a special JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to design an alternative benchmark, here are some options:

* Compare string concatenation using the `+` operator vs. template literals.
* Test performance of different string encoding schemes, such as UTF-8 vs. ISO-8859-1.
* Evaluate the performance of different JavaScript engines or versions on various platforms.

These alternatives would provide more comprehensive insights into JavaScript's string handling and interpolation features, but may require more complex setup and execution.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
single quotes	11839227.0 Ops/sec
double quotes	12033649.0 Ops/sec
backticks	11866602.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test performance of string type with interpolation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: single quotes vs double quotes vs backticks

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

single quotes

double quotes

backticks

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):