Benchmark: interpolation vs concatjhzvckxl;

Script Preparation code:

var world = "World World World World World World World World World World";

Tests:

inter
result = `Hello ${world}`
concat
result = "Hello " + world

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inter
concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that test the performance of string interpolation versus concatenation in JavaScript. The benchmarks are designed to measure which approach is faster for creating a specific string template.

**Options compared:**

Two options are compared:

1. **String Interpolation (`${world}`)**: This method uses template literals or the `+` operator with an expression inside curly braces. It's a more modern and concise way of inserting values into strings.
2. **String Concatenation (`"Hello " + world`)**: This method uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Interpolation (${world})**

Pros:

* More readable and easier to write, especially for complex string templates.
* Avoids potential issues with variable naming and scoping.

Cons:

* Might require support for template literals or expression syntax in older browsers or environments.
* May not be as efficient as concatenation, depending on the JavaScript engine used.

**Concatenation (``Hello " + world``)**

Pros:

* Widely supported across different browsers and environments.
* Can be more efficient than interpolation because it avoids creating a temporary template literal object.

Cons:

* Less readable and can lead to issues with variable naming and scoping.

**Special considerations:**

In the provided benchmark, both test cases use a string literal `world` as input. The key difference lies in how this string is incorporated into the final result. In the interpolation test case, `world` is inserted directly into the template literal using `${}`. In the concatenation test case, `world` is appended to the existing string `Hello ` using the `+` operator.

**Library usage:**

There are no libraries mentioned in the provided benchmark code or results. The benchmarks only rely on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

The benchmark uses template literals (the syntax `${world}`) and is designed to test their performance compared to concatenation. Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and have since become a widely supported feature across modern browsers.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **String formatting**: Some JavaScript engines or libraries offer string formatting APIs that can be used to insert values into strings. These often provide more control over the formatting process.
* **Internationalization and localization**: Depending on your specific use case, you might need to consider internationalization (i18n) and localization (L10n) features when working with strings in JavaScript.

In general, for most web development tasks, using template literals or concatenation should be sufficient. If you're looking for more control over string formatting or have specific requirements that involve multiple languages or date/time formats, you might want to explore these alternatives.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
inter	2306963.8 Ops/sec
concat	2626710.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

interpolation vs concatjhzvckxl; (version: 0)

sdfhu

Comparing performance of: inter vs concat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

inter

concat

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):