Benchmark: Template vs Regular strings

Tests:

Template
const s = `string`;
Regular
const s = 'string';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template
Regular

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; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/101.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 101 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Template	1591519872.0 Ops/sec
Regular	1591380608.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, where users can compare the performance of two different approaches: template literals and regular strings in JavaScript.

**Template vs Regular Strings Benchmark**

The benchmark tests the execution speed of creating string literals using either template literals (`Backtick` syntax) or regular strings (single quotes). The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Template Literals**: Using backticks (`) to create a template literal, which allows for embedding expressions inside the string.
```javascript
const s = `string`;
```
2. **Regular Strings**: Using single quotes to create a regular string literal.
```javascript
const s = 'string';
```
**Pros and Cons**

* **Template Literals**:
	+ Pros: More concise, readable, and expressive syntax. Allows for embedding expressions inside the string.
	+ Cons: May incur some overhead due to the need to parse the template literals.
* **Regular Strings**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution, as it simply concatenates the strings without any parsing or evaluation of expressions.
	+ Cons: Less readable and less expressive syntax.

**Library/Functionality Used**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. The test cases only utilize built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow for embedding expressions inside strings using backticks (`) and the `${}` syntax.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON doesn't include any script preparation code, which means that the test cases can be run directly without any additional setup or modifications.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to benchmark other string-related operations in JavaScript, some alternatives could be:

1. **String concatenation**: `s = s + 'string';`
2. **Substring extraction**: `const sub = s.substring(0, 5);`
3. **String replacement**: `const newS = s.replace('old', 'new');`

These alternatives can provide additional insights into the performance of JavaScript strings and string operations.

I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

Template vs Regular strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Template vs Regular

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Template

Regular

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):