Benchmark: string vs template vs toString

Script Preparation code:

var year = 2020

Tests:

template
`${year}`
string
String(year)
ttoString
year.toString()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
template
string
ttoString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 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 definition represents the JavaScript code that will be executed during the test. It consists of three different approaches:

1. `String(year)`: This approach uses the `String()` function to convert the `year` variable to a string.
2. `${year}`: This approach uses template literals, a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) or single quotes ('').
3. `year.toString()`: This approach uses the `toString()` method of the `year` variable to convert it to a string.

**Options Comparison**

The three approaches are compared in terms of performance, specifically the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond). The results indicate that:

* `String(year)` is the fastest approach, with an average of 4845015.5 executions per second.
* `${year}` is slower than `String(year)`, with an average of 13942695.0 executions per second.
* `year.toString()` is the slowest approach, with an average of 14358572.0 executions per second.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. `String(year)`:
	* Pros: Fastest execution time, most widely supported syntax.
	* Cons: Can be less readable when used in complex expressions.
2. `${year}` (Template Literals):
	* Pros: More readable than traditional string concatenation or `String()` function.
	* Cons: Less supported by older browsers and versions of JavaScript.
3. `year.toString()`:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward syntax.
	* Cons: Slower execution time compared to other approaches.

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use any libraries or external dependencies. The code is self-contained within the benchmark definition.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The test case uses template literals, which is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) or single quotes (''), making it easier to construct strings with dynamic values. This syntax is not supported by older versions of JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If the authors of the benchmark wanted to test alternative approaches, they could consider adding additional benchmark cases for:

* Using `String(year)` with a different formatting option (e.g., `String(year).padStart(4, '0')`)
* Using a regular expression to extract the year from a string
* Using a third-party library like Moment.js to parse dates and extract the year

However, these alternatives would likely introduce more complexity and variability in the test cases, which might not be desirable for this specific benchmark.

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/101.0.4951.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
template	14358572.0 Ops/sec
string	4845015.5 Ops/sec
ttoString	13942695.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

string vs template vs toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: template vs string vs ttoString

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

template

string

ttoString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):