Benchmark: Template literal, classNames

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/classnames/2.3.1/index.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var classA = 'primary';
var classB = 'secondary';

Tests:

Template literal
const result = `${classA} ${classB}`;
classNames
const result = window.classNames(classA, classB);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template literal
classNames

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking framework. It defines two benchmarking scripts:

1. **Template literal**: This script tests the performance of template literals in JavaScript. Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 that allows developers to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`).
2. **classNames**: This script tests the performance of the `classnames` library, which is used to concatenate class names.

**Options Compared**

In the test cases, two options are compared:

1. **Template literal**: The first option uses a template literal to create the concatenated string.
```javascript
const result = `${classA} ${classB}`;
```
2. **classNames**: The second option uses the `classnames` library to concatenate class names.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Template literal**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible or customizable as other approaches.
2. **classNames**:
	* Pros: Flexible and customizable, can handle complex class name concatenation scenarios.
	* Cons: Requires an additional library, may introduce overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When using template literals, consider the following:

* Template literals are generally faster than function calls because they are optimized for string interpolation.
* However, if you need to use template literals with complex expressions or multiple statements, it might not be the most efficient approach.

In the case of `classNames`, consider the following:

* The library is widely used and well-maintained, making it a reliable choice for class name concatenation.
* However, introducing an additional library might add overhead due to the need for module loading and initialization.

**Library: classNames**

The `classnames` library is a popular JavaScript library that provides a simple way to concatenate class names. It's designed to work with various CSS class naming conventions and can handle complex scenarios like class name prefixing, suffixing, or nesting.

When using `classNames`, you pass in multiple class names as arguments, and the library concatenates them into a single string. In this benchmark, the ` classNames` function is used to concatenate `classA` and `classB`.

**Special JS Feature: none**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond template literals.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Related benchmarks:

Template literal, classNames (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Template literal vs classNames

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Template literal

classNames

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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