Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toString vs string template literal
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
toString vs template literal
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
toString
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = 100000; const stringFromNumber = number.toString(); }
template literal
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = 100000; const stringFromNumber = `${number}`; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by two scripts that perform similar operations: converting a large number to a string. The difference between the two scripts lies in how they achieve this conversion: 1. `toString`: This script uses the built-in `toString()` method of the JavaScript `Number` type. 2. `template literal`: This script uses template literals, which are a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`). **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Using the `toString()` method**: This is the traditional way of converting numbers to strings in JavaScript. 2. **Using template literals**: This is a newer syntax feature that provides a more concise and expressive way of working with strings. **Pros and Cons** * **`toString()` method**: + Pros: Wide browser support, easy to implement, and familiar for many developers. + Cons: May be slower than template literals due to the need to call a separate method on each string literal. * **Template literals**: + Pros: More concise and expressive syntax, can provide performance benefits by avoiding the overhead of calling `toString()` or other methods. + Cons: Requires support for ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and later versions. **Library/Utility** There is no library or utility specifically mentioned in the benchmark definition. The focus is on comparing two different JavaScript syntax features. **Special JS Features/Syntax** The benchmark uses template literals, which are a special feature of JavaScript introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`). **Other Alternatives** If the benchmark were to compare other methods for converting numbers to strings, such as: * Using `Number.toString()` and concatenation: `+` * Using a utility function, like this: `(x) => x.toString()` These alternatives would be considered if they were part of the original benchmark definition. In summary, the benchmark compares two options for converting large numbers to strings in JavaScript: using the `toString()` method versus template literals. The results indicate that template literals provide better performance in this specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
String() vs template literal
string vs template vs toString
number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor
String() primitive vs template literal interpolation for representing a number as a string
number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor(2)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?