Benchmark: Concatenate random strings with + vs template literals vs String.concat

Script Preparation code:

var a = "some text";
var b = "other text";

Tests:

plus operator
a + " aaa " + Math.random() + " bbb" + b + " 3210 " + Math.random() + " ccc";
concat function
"".concat(a, " aaa ", Math.random(), " bbb ", b, " 3210 ", Math.random(), " ccc");
template literals
`${a} aaa ${Math.random()} bbb ${b} 3210 ${Math.random()} ccc`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
plus operator
concat function
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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark tests three different approaches for concatenating strings:

1. Using the `+` operator (plus operator)
2. Using the `concat()` function
3. Using template literals (`${...}`)

**Options comparison:**

Here's a brief overview of each approach and their pros and cons:

1. **Plus Operator (+)**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and efficient for small strings.
	* Cons: Can lead to performance issues with large strings due to the overhead of concatenation and potential memory allocation.
2. **Concat Function (`concat()`)**:
	* Pros: More efficient than the plus operator for large strings, as it avoids the overhead of string creation and concatenation.
	* Cons: May be slower for small strings due to the extra function call, and is less concise.
3. **Template Literals (`${...}`)**:
	* Pros: Provides a more readable and expressive way to concatenate strings, especially with variable values.
	* Cons: Can be slower than the plus operator or `concat()` function due to string creation and parsing.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some implementations of template literals may rely on underlying libraries or frameworks for their functionality.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark uses JavaScript features specifically designed for performance optimization:

* `Math.random()` is used to add noise and prevent caching.
* The use of `var` declarations for variable assignment, which can help avoid issues with function scope in older browsers.

**Other alternatives:**

In the context of string concatenation, other approaches might include:

* Using an array or string buffer to concatenate strings, especially for large datasets.
* Utilizing optimized string concatenation libraries or frameworks, such as Underscore.js or Lodash.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like `String.prototype.repeat()` or template literals with repeated expressions.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Concatenate random strings with + vs template literals vs String.concat (version: 1)

Find best solution for concatenate strings. Math.random() used to prevent any caching.

Comparing performance of: plus operator vs concat function vs template literals

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

plus operator

concat function

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):