Benchmark: test performance of string type with interpolation v2

Script Preparation code:

const 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 what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` specifies that we're testing string interpolation, which is a feature of JavaScript that allows you to embed expressions inside strings using specific syntax.

**Options Compared**

Three options are compared:

1. **Single Quotes (`'')**: This option uses single quotes to enclose the interpolated expression.
2. **Double Quotes (`"")**: This option uses double quotes to enclose the interpolated expression.
3. **Backticks (``)`: This option uses backticks, also known as template literals, to enclose the interpolated expression.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Single Quotes (`'')**:
	+ Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can lead to issues with escaped characters or character encoding.
* **Double Quotes (`"")**:
	+ Pros: Also simple and widely supported, but can lead to issues with nested quotes.
	+ Cons: Similar to single quotes, can lead to issues with escaped characters or character encoding.
* **Backticks (``)**:
	+ Pros: More expressive and powerful than single quotes, allowing for feature extraction and string interpolation using ${expression}.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported, but still widely used in modern JavaScript.

**Library and Purpose**

The test case uses the `string` library, which is a built-in JavaScript library that provides various string-related methods and functions. In this case, it's likely being used for string concatenation or interpolation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The test case doesn't explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax, but backticks (``) are a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow for more expressive and powerful string interpolation using ${expression}.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative options that could be used for string interpolation include:

* Using the `String.prototype.format()` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2009):
```javascript
const name = 'Oatmeal';
console.log('hi I\'m a peanut whose name is ' + String.format(name, '%s', name));
```
* Using a library like Lodash's `template` function:
```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');
const name = 'Oatmeal';
console.log(_.template('hi I\'m a peanut whose name is <%= name %>')(name));
```
These alternatives are less common and might not be as widely supported or used in production code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/72.0.3626.109 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 72 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
single quotes	3227591.0 Ops/sec
double quotes	3179646.2 Ops/sec
backticks	3171818.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test performance of string type with interpolation v2 (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):