Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-performance

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
var stringValue = 'lorem ipsum';
var today = new Date();

Tests:

string-interpolation
`your lucky number for today (${today}) is: ${luckyNumber} ... ${stringValue}`
string-concatenation
'your lucky number for today (' + today + ') is: ' + luckyNumber + ' ... ' + stringValue

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
string-concatenation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:142.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/142.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 142 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	7376011.5 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	6833211.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, "string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-performance", compares the performance of two approaches for string manipulation in JavaScript: template literals (string interpolation) and concatenation using the "+" operator.

**Options Compared**

Two test cases are compared:

1. **String Interpolation**: Using template literals to create a string.
2. **String Concatenation**: Using the "+" operator to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Template Literals (String Interpolation)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and maintainable code
		- Reduced risk of errors due to automatic escaping and parsing
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance overhead due to the creation of a new string object
		- Not all browsers support template literals, although most modern ones do
* **String Concatenation (using "+")**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and efficient, as it only creates a single string object
	+ Cons:
		- More error-prone due to the lack of automatic escaping and parsing
		- Can lead to performance issues if done in a loop or with large strings

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark. However, Firefox/113's execution time for both test cases implies that it's using the JavaScript engine's built-in string manipulation functionality.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses template literals (string interpolation), which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This allows for more readable and maintainable code by enabling the use of backticks (`) to delimit string expressions. While not all browsers supported this feature initially, most modern ones do.

**Other Alternatives**

While template literals are an efficient and readable way to create strings in JavaScript, there are other alternatives:

* **String formatting functions**: Some libraries like Lodash provide string formatting functions that can be used for interpolation.
* **DOM-based templating engines**: Engines like Handlebars or Mustache allow you to write templates using a syntax similar to HTML, which can then be executed to generate strings.

However, these alternatives are typically used in more complex scenarios or when dealing with large datasets, and the benchmark focuses on comparing simple string interpolation vs concatenation.

Related benchmarks:

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation-performance (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):