Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
""+number vs .toString()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of: ""+number vs .toString()
Comparing performance of:
""+number vs .toString()
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
""+number
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(""+num); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
""+number
.toString()
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 JSON and benchmark preparation code to understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The benchmark definition represents two different approaches for converting a number to a string: 1. `"\""+number`: This approach uses template literals with backticks (`) to concatenate the `num` variable directly to the string. 2. `.toString()`: This approach calls the `toString()` method on the `num` variable, which converts it to a string. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * Template literal concatenation (`"\""+number`) * Method call-based string conversion (`.toString()`) **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Template Literal Concatenation (`"\""+number`)**: * Pros: This approach is often faster because it avoids the overhead of method calls and can be optimized by the JavaScript engine. * Cons: This approach requires the use of template literals, which may not be familiar to all developers. Additionally, this approach can lead to issues with string formatting and error handling. 2. **Method Call-Based String Conversion (`.toString()`)**: * Pros: This approach is more explicit and readable, making it easier for other developers to understand the intent of the code. * Cons: This approach may be slower than template literal concatenation due to the overhead of method calls. **Library Usage** There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition JSON. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Google Chrome), provide built-in optimizations for certain string conversion techniques. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The template literal syntax (`"\""+number`) is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows for more concise and readable string interpolation using backticks. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some additional options: * **`String()` function**: This function can be used to convert a number to a string. However, it's generally slower than template literals or method calls. * **`Number.toString()`**: This approach converts the `num` variable to a string using the `toString()` method of the `Number` object. While this might seem like an alternative to `.toString()`, it's actually equivalent because both methods call the same underlying implementation. In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for converting numbers to strings: template literal concatenation and method call-based string conversion. The choice between these options depends on performance considerations and personal preference.
Related benchmarks:
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString
String to int vs int to string 2
parseInt vs toString vs string literal vs + empty string vs String constructor
String to number, parseInt, +, or * 1
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString yoyo
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?