Benchmark: template literal vs toString 4

Script Preparation code:

var max = 10000; // 10,000 (10 Thousand)

var array2 = [];
var array3 = [];
var array = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max; i++) {
    array.push(i);
}

Tests:

toString
for(i=0; i < array.length; i++) { array2.push('simple string ' + (i * 5).toString()); }
template literal
for(i=0; i < array.length; i++) { array3.push(`simple string ${i * 5}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
template literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString	398.5 Ops/sec
template literal	360.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in a clear and concise manner.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create strings: using `toString()` method and template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). The test case uses an array of integers, and for each iteration, it pushes either a simple string with the integer value multiplied by 5 converted to a string using `toString()`, or a template literal string with the same operation.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`toString()` method**: This approach uses the built-in `toString()` method to convert an integer value to a string.
2. **Template literals**: Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 as a new way to create strings. They allow embedding expressions inside backticks (`) and automatically call the `toString()` method on those expressions.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

* **`toString()` method**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, easy to implement, and efficient.
	+ Cons: can lead to unnecessary string conversions if not used carefully.
* **Template literals**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and can reduce the number of string concatenations.
	+ Cons: may introduce additional overhead due to the creation of a new expression object.

**Library and special features**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other considerations**

* The test case uses an array of integers, which means that the performance difference between these two approaches will be significant for large datasets.
* The use of `toString()` method can lead to unnecessary string conversions if not used carefully. In contrast, template literals can reduce the number of string concatenations.
* The benchmark is run on a desktop device with Chrome 97 browser, which may affect the results due to specific browser optimizations or caching.

**Other alternatives**

There are other ways to create strings in JavaScript, such as:

1. **String concatenation**: using the `+` operator to concatenate strings.
2. **Array.join() method**: using an array of strings and joining them together with a separator.
3. **String formatting functions**: like `String.prototype.format()` or `Internationalization API`.

However, these alternatives are not being compared in this benchmark.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches to create strings: using the `toString()` method and template literals. The test case uses an array of integers, and the results show that template literals can be slightly faster than using the `toString()` method due to reduced string concatenations.

Related benchmarks:

template literal vs toString 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs template literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

template literal

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):