Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat my

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using template literals

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which aims to compare three different approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript.

**Benchmark Name:** "Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat my"

**Description:** The goal is to find the best solution for concatenating four strings.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Using the `+` operator**: This is a classic approach where you concatenate two or more strings using the `+` operator.
2. **Using template literals**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to format strings.
3. **Using `String.concat()`**: Although deprecated since ES5, some developers might still use this method for concatenating strings.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Using the `+` operator**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand and implement, works in older browsers that don't support template literals.
	+ Cons: Can lead to performance issues due to string copying and creation, makes code harder to read when dealing with multiple concatenations.
* **Using template literals**:
	+ Pros: More readable and expressive, avoids the need for explicit `+` or `concat()` calls, and is generally faster than using strings for simple concatenation.
	+ Cons: Requires JavaScript version 5.6 (ES6) or higher, might be slower due to compiler optimization.
* **Using `String.concat()`**:
	+ Pros: Simple to use, works in older browsers that don't support template literals.
	+ Cons: Deprecate since ES5, and its performance is generally worse than using template literals.

The test case uses the `id` and `name` variables defined in the "Script Preparation Code" section, which are strings containing placeholder values.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It's a straightforward test to compare the performance of different string concatenation methods.

**Alternative approaches:**

* **Using `String.prototype +=`**: Although not shown in this benchmark, some developers might use this method for simple concatenations.
* **Using a library like Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides various string manipulation functions, including `concat()`.
* **Using an alternative concatenation method**, such as using a regex pattern to create a single string from multiple input strings.

In conclusion, the benchmark highlights the importance of choosing efficient and readable ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript. Template literals are generally considered the best approach due to their readability, expressiveness, and performance advantages.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat my (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using template literals

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using template literals

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):