Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-toString

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);

Tests:

string-interpolation
` ${luckyNumber}`
toSstring
luckyNumber.toString()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 214 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 169 runs

string-interpolation

25.2M/s

toSstring

24.5M/s

View exact numbers

✓ string-interpolation: 25,225,968 ops/sec
• toSstring: 24,518,892 ops/sec

Firefox 34 runs

toSstring

1361.4M/s

string-interpolation

234.9M/s

Fastest: toSstring (5.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ toSstring: 1,361,440,512 ops/sec
• string-interpolation: 234,876,704 ops/sec

Safari 6 runs

toSstring

30.9M/s

string-interpolation

30.4M/s

View exact numbers

✓ toSstring: 30,871,712 ops/sec
• string-interpolation: 30,404,140 ops/sec

Other 5 runs

string-interpolation

35.0M/s

toSstring

33.8M/s

View exact numbers

✓ string-interpolation: 34,990,740 ops/sec
• toSstring: 33,845,032 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
string-interpolation
toSstring

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/130.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

string-interpolation

206.6M/s

toSstring

158.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ string-interpolation	206,580,912 Ops/sec
toSstring	158,384,560 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website MeasureThat.net provides a JSON object that defines a benchmark, which includes:

* `Name`: A unique identifier for the benchmark (in this case, "string-interpolation-vs-toString").
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark, which is not provided in this example.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These are used to set up the environment before running the benchmarks. In this case, the script preparation code includes a line that generates a random number between 0 and 100 using JavaScript's `Math.random()` function.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **"string-interpolation"**
	* `Benchmark Definition`: The string interpolation syntax (` ${luckyNumber}` ) is used to insert the value of `luckyNumber` into a string.
	* This approach uses template literals, which were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a concise way to concatenate strings with embedded expressions.
2. **"toSstring"**
	* `Benchmark Definition`: The `toString()` method is called on the value of `luckyNumber` to convert it to a string.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are compared:

1. **String Interpolation**: Using template literals to insert values into strings.
2. **toString() Method**: Calling the `toString()` method on a value to convert it to a string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **String Interpolation (Template Literals)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable syntax
		- Works with numeric values, strings, and other data types
		- Can be used for formatting output in various contexts
	+ Cons:
		- May not work as expected when dealing with non-string values or certain edge cases
		- Can lead to issues if not properly handled (e.g., null or undefined values)
* **toString() Method**:
	+ Pros:
		- Widely supported and understood in most programming languages
		- Works with all data types, including numbers
	+ Cons:
		- May be less readable than string interpolation syntax
		- Can lead to unnecessary conversions if not used carefully

**Library or Special JS Feature Used**

Neither of the test cases uses a specific library. The `toString()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that converts values to strings, and template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Considerations**

When comparing string interpolation and the `toString()` method, it's essential to consider performance, readability, and potential edge cases. For example:

* In some cases, string interpolation may perform better due to its conciseness and reduced overhead.
* However, if not handled carefully, string interpolation can lead to unexpected behavior or security vulnerabilities.
* The `toString()` method is generally more widely supported and understood than string interpolation syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string formatting in JavaScript include:

1. **String Concatenation**: Using the `+` operator to concatenate strings with embedded expressions (e.g., `var result = "Hello, " + name;`).
2. **String Formatting Functions**: Using functions like `String.format()` or `String.prototype.replace()` to format strings (e.g., `String.format("Hello, %s!", name)`).

However, these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and use cases compared to string interpolation and the `toString()` method.

string-interpolation-vs-toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `string-interpolation vs toSstring`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

string-interpolation

toSstring

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 214 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 169 runs

Firefox 34 runs

Safari 6 runs

Other 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

string-interpolation-vs-toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs toSstring

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

string-interpolation

toSstring

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 214 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 169 runs

Firefox 34 runs

Safari 6 runs

Other 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `string-interpolation vs toSstring`