Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat_0

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 1080; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 1080; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using template literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	3494.0 Ops/sec
using template literals	3520.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to test three different methods of concatenating strings in JavaScript: using the `+` operator, template literals (also known as backticks), and `String.concat_0`. The goal is to determine which method is the most efficient for concatenating four strings.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared are:

1. **Using the `+` operator**: This is a simple way of concatenating strings by adding them together using the `+` symbol.
2. **Template literals**: Also known as backticks, this syntax allows you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) and use template literal syntax to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Using the `+` operator**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to read.
	+ Cons: Can lead to performance issues if used excessively due to string internment and the overhead of creating new strings in memory.
* **Template literals**:
	+ Pros: More expressive, faster, and more efficient than the `+` operator for concatenating multiple strings.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported (only available from ECMAScript 2015 onwards), may require additional setup for older browsers.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015, which means older browsers might not support them natively.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the benchmark that require specific knowledge to understand.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods of concatenating strings, there are a few other options:

1. **`String.fromCharCode` and `+`**: This method uses the `String.fromCharCode` function to create an array of characters and then concatenates them using the `+` operator.
2. **`Array.prototype.concat`**: Similar to the previous approach, but uses the `Array.prototype.concat` method instead.

Here's some example code that demonstrates these alternatives:
```javascript
// Using String.fromCharCode and +
var result = '';
for (let i = 0; i < 1080; ++i) {
  result += String.fromCharCode(65 + i) + ': ' + String.fromCharCode(69 + i);
}

// Using Array.prototype.concat
var array = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 1080; ++i) {
  array.push(String.fromCharCode(65 + i));
}
result = array.reduce((a, b) => a + b + ': ');
```
These alternatives may have different performance characteristics and are not as expressive or efficient as template literals.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat_0 (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using template literals

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using template literals

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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