Benchmark: `${num}` vs ""+number vs .toString()

Script Preparation code:

var num = 500;
var nums = [];

Tests:

`${num}`
for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`); }
""+number
for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(""+num); }
.toString()
for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
`${num}`
""+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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

The test cases compare three different approaches to concatenating a string with an integer value using JavaScript:

1. Template literals (`${num}`): This approach uses template literals, which are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (`) and evaluate them at runtime.
2. String concatenation with the `+` operator (`"\" + number`): This classic approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate strings and numbers.
3. The `toString()` method: This approach simply converts the integer value to a string using the `toString()` method.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**Template literals (`${num}`)**

Pros:

* Readability: Template literals make it clear that the expression is being evaluated at runtime.
* Expressiveness: You can embed complex expressions directly inside the string.

Cons:

* Compatibility: While widely supported, template literals are not yet supported in older browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer).
* Performance: Some benchmarks may show slightly slower performance due to the added overhead of evaluating expressions.

**String concatenation with the `+` operator (`"\" + number`)**

Pros:

* Compatibility: This approach is generally compatible across all browsers.
* Performance: Concatenating strings using the `+` operator can be faster, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new string object.

Cons:

* Readability: The use of quotes and parentheses can make the code harder to read.
* Error-prone: If not used carefully, this approach can lead to errors due to incorrect usage of quotes or parentheses.

**The `toString()` method**

Pros:

* Readability: Converting integers to strings using the `toString()` method is straightforward and easy to understand.
* Compatibility: This approach is widely supported across all browsers.

Cons:

* Performance: Converting integers to strings can be slower than concatenating strings using the `+` operator or template literals.

Now, let's discuss the library used in the test case. There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that some of these approaches may rely on internal libraries or APIs (e.g., Chrome's JavaScript engine).

Regarding special JS features or syntax, there are none explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippet.

In terms of alternatives, you can use other methods to concatenate strings and integers, such as:

* Using the `String()` function: `String(number)`
* Using a StringBuilder-like approach: (e.g., creating an array and pushing elements to it)
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for string manipulation

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

Related benchmarks:

`${num}` vs ""+number vs .toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `${num}` vs ""+number vs .toString()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

`${num}`

""+number

.toString()

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):