Benchmark: += vs templateString ...

Script Preparation code:

rc = {regex: /^\s*(\S+)\s+(\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3})\s+([a-f\d\.]+)\s+(\d+)/i}

Tests:

+=
let flags = rc.regex.flags; flags += !rc.regex.multiline ? 'm' : ''; // adding multiline if not flags += !rc.regex.global ? 'g' : ''; // adding global if not console.log(flags)
template
flags = `${rc.regex.flags}${!rc.regex.multiline ? 'm' : ''}${!rc.regex.global ? 'g' : ''}`; console.log(flags);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
+=
template

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and provide an analysis of the different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in two parts: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The `Script Preparation Code` defines a regular expression pattern `rc.regex` with flags that can be modified by the test cases. The `Html Preparation Code` is empty, which means no HTML preparation code is required for this benchmark.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **+= Operator**: This approach uses the `+=` operator to concatenate a string and modify the `flags` variable.
2. **Template String**: This approach uses template strings (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to format the `flags` variable.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's an analysis of each approach:

### += Operator

Pros:

* Widely supported by most JavaScript engines
* Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with C-style programming languages
* Fast performance, as it involves simple arithmetic operations

Cons:

* Can lead to less readable code if not used carefully
* May have issues with string concatenation performance due to the creation of temporary strings
* Can be slower than template strings in some cases

### Template String

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Supports formatting of numbers, dates, and other types of data
* Good performance, as it involves fewer operations compared to `+=`

Cons:

* Less widely supported by older JavaScript engines (pre-ES2015)
* May be slower than the `+=` operator in some cases due to the creation of a new string object

**Library/Functionality**

None of these approaches use any external libraries or functions. The regular expression pattern is defined within the script preparation code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Neither approach uses any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, arrow functions, or generators.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark measures the execution speed of both approaches by executing each test case multiple times and calculating the total number of executions per second. The results provide a comparison of the performance of these two approaches in a controlled environment.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to this benchmark, consider using other JavaScript benchmarking tools or frameworks that can help you compare the performance of different code snippets or functions, such as:

* jsperf: A popular JavaScript performance benchmarking tool
* Benchmark.js: A modern JavaScript benchmarking library
* JSPerf2: An updated version of jsperf with improved features and support for newer browsers

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool or framework depends on your specific use case, target audience, and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
+=	209465.6 Ops/sec
template	133487.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

+= vs templateString ... (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: += vs template

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

+=

template

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):