Benchmark: Test string concat

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>

Tests:

1 All together
const getDuration = () => { const duration = moment.duration(1234567, 'seconds'); const days = Math.floor(duration.asDays()); const time = `${days > 0 ? `${days}d` : ''}${duration.hours()}h${duration.minutes()}m`; return time; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { console.log(getDuration()); }
2 Separate concats
const getDuration = () => { const seconds = 1234567; const duration = moment.duration(seconds, 'seconds'); let time = ''; const days = Math.floor(duration.asDays()); if (days > 0) { time += days + 'd'; } time += duration.hours() +'h' + duration.minutes() + 'm'; return time; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { console.log(getDuration()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1 All together
2 Separate concats

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated yesterday):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark provided is designed to evaluate the performance of two different approaches to string concatenation in JavaScript, specifically within the context of formatting a duration in days, hours, and minutes using the Moment.js library.

### What is Tested

The benchmark compares two methods of string concatenation:

1. **All Together**: This approach constructs the output string in a single template literal statement.
2. **Separate Concats**: This method builds the string by appending pieces of the output in a more segmented manner, making use of the `+=` operator.

### Comparison of Options

1. **All Together**: 
   - **Pros**:
     - More concise and elegant syntax using template literals.
     - Can be easier to read and maintain, especially for experienced developers familiar with ES6 features.
   - **Cons**:
     - Depending on the JavaScript engine's optimization, concatenating strings in this way may be slightly less performant in scenarios involving many concatenations, especially if the engine doesn't optimize template literals effectively.

2. **Separate Concats**:
   - **Pros**:
     - Provides greater control over string assembly and may be more familiar to developers who are accustomed to traditional string concatenation practices.
     - Each part of the string is built step-by-step, which might allow for easy debugging and adjustments.
   - **Cons**:
     - Can be more verbose and vulnerable to errors, such as forgetting to include spaces or other separators.
     - The use of `+=` in a loop can sometimes lead to inefficiencies, although modern JavaScript engines tend to optimize this fairly well.

### Library Used: Moment.js

- **Purpose**: Moment.js is a popular JavaScript library used for parsing, validating, manipulating, and displaying dates and times. In this case, it is specifically used to create a duration object from a given number of seconds and then convert that duration into days, hours, and minutes.
  
  While Moment.js simplifies date manipulations, it is worth noting that it has been largely superseded by more modern libraries like **date-fns** or **day.js**, which aim to provide a lighter and more modular approach to date handling.

### Considerations and Alternatives

When considering performance in JavaScript, especially for sections of code that may execute frequently or in tight loops, developers should take care of their concatenation methods.

Some alternatives to the methods tested include:

- **Array.join**: Using an array to collect string parts and then joining them with `array.join('')` is often faster, particularly for many concatenations.
  
  ```javascript
  const parts = [];
  if (days > 0) parts.push(days + 'd');
  parts.push(duration.hours() + 'h');
  parts.push(duration.minutes() + 'm');
  return parts.join('');
  ```

- **String Interpolation** with `String.prototype.concat`: While less common, it is another way to concatenate strings and might still be useful in specific cases.

Ultimately, the choice of string concatenation method can impact performance, readability, and maintainability of code, and should be selected based on the context of usage and the preferences of the development team. The provided benchmark compares two fundamental approaches that serve as a foundation for understanding string handling in JavaScript.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1 All together	442.4 Ops/sec
2 Separate concats	436.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test string concat (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: 1 All together vs 2 Separate concats

Created: 2 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1 All together

2 Separate concats

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated yesterday):