Benchmark: String concat interpolation

Script Preparation code:

var a = ['test'];
var b = ['testier'];

Tests:

Interpolation
`${a[0]}${b}`
Concat
a[0].concat(b);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Interpolation
Concat

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for measuring the performance difference between two approaches: string interpolation and concatenation.

**Script Preparation Code**

Before running the benchmarks, the script prepares two arrays:

```javascript
var a = ['test']; // array 'a'
var b = ['testier']; // array 'b'
```

This code sets up the input data for both test cases. The purpose of `a` and `b` is to create a string interpolation scenario.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, so we can assume that this benchmark focuses solely on JavaScript performance.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON defines two benchmark test cases:

1. **Interpolation**: `"${a[0]}${b}"`

This benchmark tests the performance of string interpolation. The template literal syntax (`"..."`) is used to insert the values from `a` and `b` into a single string. This approach is often faster because it avoids creating intermediate strings.

2. **Concat**: `a[0].concat(b);`

This benchmark tests the performance of concatenating two arrays using the `concat()` method. This approach creates an intermediate string, which can lead to slower performance compared to interpolation.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the following options:

* String interpolation (`"${a[0]}${b}"`)
* Concatenation with `concat()` method (`a[0].concat(b)`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **String Interpolation**:
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster because it avoids creating intermediate strings.
		- Can be more readable, especially in template literals.
	+ Cons:
		- May not work correctly with all data types (e.g., non-string values).
* **Concatenation with `concat()` method**:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported and understood by most developers.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to slower performance due to intermediate string creation.

**Library or Special JS Feature**

There is no library used in this benchmark, but it does utilize a special JavaScript feature: template literals (`"..."`). Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a concise way to insert values into strings.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to test other approaches or variations of these tests, consider adding more benchmark definitions. Some alternatives could be:

* Using `String.prototype.concat()` instead of the array's `concat()` method.
* Adding additional data types (e.g., numbers) to the interpolation and concatenation examples.
* Exploring performance differences with different JavaScript engines or versions.

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.93 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Interpolation	3296793.5 Ops/sec
Concat	3075954.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String concat interpolation (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Interpolation vs Concat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Interpolation

Concat

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):