Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-for-random-numbers

Script Preparation code:

var rnd = () => Math.round(Math.random() * 1000);

Tests:

string-interpolation
`abc;${rnd()};${rnd()};${rnd()};${rnd()};${rnd()}`
string-concatenation
'abc;'+rnd()+';'+rnd()+';'+rnd()+';'+rnd()+';'+rnd()
random-number-generation
rnd(); rnd(); rnd(); rnd(); rnd();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
string-concatenation
random-number-generation

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 to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches:

1. **String Interpolation**: Using template literals with embedded expressions, e.g., `${rnd()}`.
2. **String Concatenation**: Using string concatenation operators (+) to concatenate strings with embedded expressions, e.g., `'abc;'+rnd()+';'+...`.
3. **Direct Function Call**: Calling a function (`rnd()`) multiple times.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* **String Interpolation (Template Literals)**: This approach uses template literals to embed expressions within strings, making it easier to write readable and maintainable code.
* **String Concatenation**: This approach uses string concatenation operators (+) to concatenate strings with embedded expressions. While this approach can be concise, it can also lead to performance issues due to the creation of temporary objects.
* **Direct Function Call**: This approach involves calling a function multiple times to generate random numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **String Interpolation (Template Literals)**:
	* Pros: Performance is generally better than string concatenation, as it avoids creating temporary objects. It also provides a more readable and maintainable way of embedding expressions within strings.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript.
2. **String Concatenation**:
	* Pros: Can be concise and easy to read for simple cases.
	* Cons: Performance can suffer due to the creation of temporary objects, making it slower than string interpolation.

3. **Direct Function Call**:
	* Pros: No performance overhead due to concatenation or template literals.
	* Cons: Requires calling a function multiple times, which may not be desirable in some cases (e.g., if the function has side effects).

**Library and Purpose**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a feature to improve string interpolation.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Template literals are a special syntax in JavaScript that allows embedding expressions within strings using the `${}` syntax. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and has since become a standard part of modern JavaScript.

Now, let's discuss other alternatives to these approaches:

* **Other Approaches**: There are other ways to concatenate strings or generate random numbers, such as using `join()` with an array of values or `Math.random()` without the overhead of a function call.
* **Library Alternatives**: While there is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition, some libraries (e.g., Underscore.js) provide utility functions for string manipulation and random number generation.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the provided benchmark definition and test cases!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 78 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	6222051.0 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	6187665.5 Ops/sec
random-number-generation	21193540.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-for-random-numbers (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation vs random-number-generation

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

random-number-generation

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):