Benchmark: array.toString vs `${array}`

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8']

Tests:

array.toString
arr.toString()
`${array}`
`${arr}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array.toString
`${array}`

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark, compare different approaches, and discuss their pros and cons.

**What's being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two ways of converting an array to a string:

1. Using the `toString()` method on the array object: `arr.toString()`
2. Using template literals (interpolated strings): `${array}`

**Options comparison**

There are two main approaches being compared:

* **Approach 1: `toString()` method**: This approach uses the built-in `toString()` method on the array object to convert it to a string. The `toString()` method returns a string representation of the object, which can be customized using optional arguments.
* **Approach 2: Template literals (interpolated strings)**: This approach uses template literals, introduced in ECMAScript 2015, to convert the array to a string. Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to format strings.

**Pros and Cons**

**`toString()` method:**

Pros:

* Wide browser support (all browsers support `toString()` method)
* Simple to implement
* Can be customized using optional arguments

Cons:

* May not produce the desired output if array elements are not strings
* Can be slower than template literals due to the overhead of calling a method on an object

**Template literals (interpolated strings):**

Pros:

* Produces more predictable and consistent results, as it's designed specifically for string formatting
* Can handle array elements of different data types
* Often faster than `toString()` method due to its optimized implementation

Cons:

* Requires ECMAScript 2015 or later support
* May have issues with older browsers that don't support template literals

**Library usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. Both approaches rely on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

Template literals are a special feature of ECMAScript 2015, introduced as a new way of formatting strings. This feature allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using the `${}` syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare other ways of converting arrays to strings, here are some alternatives:

* **`join()` method**: Using the `join()` method on an array can also convert it to a string. However, this approach requires specifying a separator and may not be as efficient as template literals.
* **`Array.prototype.map()` + `join()`**: Another approach is to use `map()` to create a new array with the desired string representation of each element and then join them using the `join()` method.

These alternatives can provide additional insights into different aspects of array conversion, but they may not be as representative of real-world scenarios as the two approaches being compared in this 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/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.5 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array.toString	8203010.5 Ops/sec
`${array}`	5492790.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array.toString vs `${array}` (version: 0)

array.toString vs `${array}`

Comparing performance of: array.toString vs `${array}`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array.toString

`${array}`

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):