Benchmark: test string - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 12, 123, 1234, 12345, 123456, 1234567, 12345678, 123456789];

Tests:

a1
numbers.forEach((number) => String(number))
a2
numbers.forEach((number) => `${number}`)
a3
numbers.forEach((number) => number.toString())
a4
numbers.forEach((number) => number + "")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a1
a2
a3
a4

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.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different approaches to achieve a specific goal.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition with two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section contains a JavaScript code snippet that prepares the data for testing. In this case, it creates an array `numbers` with 9 elements.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section is empty in this example.

**Individual Test Cases**

The provided JSON also includes an array of individual test cases, each representing a different approach to achieve the same goal:

* **a1**: Uses the `.forEach()` method and a string conversion function `String(number)`.
* **a2**: Uses the `.forEach()` method and a template string `${number}`.
* **a3**: Uses the `.forEach()` method and the `toString()` method on individual numbers.
* **a4**: Uses the `.forEach()` method and concatenation with an empty string (`''`).

**Comparison of Approaches**

The test cases compare different ways to convert a number to a string:

1. **Using String()**: This approach uses the built-in `String()` function to convert each number to a string.
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be as performant as other approaches due to the overhead of creating a new string object.
2. **Using Template Strings (a2)**: This approach uses template strings (`${number}`) to convert each number to a string.
	* Pros: Similar performance to `String()`, but can provide more flexibility and readability in certain cases.
	* Cons: May not be supported by older browsers or environments.
3. **Using toString() (a3)**: This approach uses the `.toString()` method on individual numbers to convert them to strings.
	* Pros: Lightweight, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can be less readable than other approaches due to its simplicity.
4. **Using Concatenation (a4)**: This approach uses concatenation (`number + ''`) to convert each number to a string.
	* Pros: Simple and easy to read, but can be less efficient than other approaches.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. However, some JavaScript environments may include libraries that provide additional functionality for strings or arrays, such as `String.prototype.trim()` or `Array.prototype.map()`. These would not affect the comparison of the different approaches.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The only special feature used in this benchmark is template strings (`${number}`), which are a relatively recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2015).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting numbers to strings could include:

1. **Using `+` operator with an empty string**: Similar to approach **a4**, but can be less readable.
2. **Using `Number.toString()`**: An older, more lightweight way of converting a number to a string.
3. **Using `String.fromCharCode()` and `+`**: Can provide a more flexible way of creating strings from numbers, but may not be as efficient.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your project, including performance, readability, and compatibility with different browsers or environments.

Related benchmarks:

test string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a1 vs a2 vs a3 vs a4

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a1

a2

a3

a4

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):