Benchmark: template literal vs toString

Script Preparation code:

var max = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)

var array2 = [];
var array = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max; i++) {
    array.push(i);
}

Tests:

toString
for(i=0; i < array.length; i++) { array2[i] = 'simple string ' + (i * 5).toString(); }
template literal
for(i=0; i < array.length; i++) { array2[i] = `simple string ${i * 5}`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
template literal

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 explanation of the provided JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in two parts: Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code. The Script Preparation Code sets up an array `array` with 10 million elements, and the Html Preparation Code is empty, which means no HTML code is prepared for this benchmark.

The purpose of this script preparation code is to create a large array that will be used in the subsequent test cases. This array will have a significant impact on the performance of the benchmark, as it involves creating a large number of elements and pushing them onto the array.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **toString**: This test case uses the `toString()` method to concatenate strings with the array index multiplied by 5.
2. **template literal**: This test case uses template literals (``) to concatenate strings with the array index multiplied by 5.

Both test cases iterate over the `array` and assign a string value to an element in another array (`array2`). The difference between the two test cases lies in how they concatenate the string values.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare:

* **toString() vs template literals**: This comparison tests the performance of concatenating strings using the traditional `toString()` method versus the more modern template literal syntax.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **toString():**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported and compatible with older browsers.
		+ Can be used in situations where template literals are not available or preferred.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to slower performance due to the creation of intermediate strings.
2. **template literals:**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient than `toString()` since it avoids creating intermediate strings.
		+ More readable and concise syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported in older browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer).

**Library and Its Purpose**

None of the test cases use a library explicitly. However, the template literals feature is a part of the ECMAScript standard, which means it's built-in to JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The test case uses template literals (`"), which are a modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`) instead of the traditional `+` operator.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to concatenate strings, you can use other methods such as:

* **Array.join()**: Concatenates an array of strings into a single string.
* **String.prototype.concat()**: Concatenates two or more strings into a single string.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these alternatives are usually negligible unless you're working with extremely large datasets.

Related benchmarks:

template literal vs toString (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs template literal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

template literal

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):