Benchmark: adding strings or template string

Script Preparation code:

var s1 = "0123456789";

Tests:

adding string
var n1 = s1.slice(0, 6) + s1.slice(6);
template string
var n1 = `${s1.slice(0, 6)}${s1.slice(6)}`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
adding string
template string

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 gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares two ways of concatenating strings in JavaScript: using the traditional `slice()` method and using template literals (backticks).

**Let's break down each approach:**

* **Adding Strings (`var n1 = s1.slice(0, 6) + s1.slice(6);`)**: This method uses two `slice()` calls to extract portions of the original string (`s1`) and then combines them using the `+` operator. It's a straightforward approach that relies on older JavaScript syntax.

* **Template String (`var n1 = `${s1.slice(0, 6)}${s1.slice(6)}`;`)**: This method utilizes template literals, a more modern feature introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015). It allows embedding expressions directly within strings using the backticks (` `` `) delimiter and the `${}` syntax.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Adding Strings:**
    * **Pros:** Simple and familiar to developers who learned JavaScript before ES6.
    * **Cons:** Can be verbose for repeated concatenations, especially with multiple variables.

* **Template String:**
    * **Pros:** Cleaner syntax, more readable, especially when dealing with complex string manipulations. Supports embedding expressions directly within strings.
    * **Cons:** Requires understanding of ES6 features and might not be compatible with older browsers that don't support ES6.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Performance:** The benchmark results suggest that template literals are slightly faster in this particular case. However, performance differences between these methods can vary depending on the complexity of the string manipulation and other factors like browser optimizations.
* **Readability:** Template strings are generally considered more readable due to their cleaner syntax. This makes code easier to maintain and understand.

**Alternatives:**

While not directly compared in this benchmark, here are some alternative string concatenation techniques:

* **String methods like `concat()`**: Offers a slightly different approach to joining strings.
* **Libraries like Lodash or Underscore**: These libraries often provide optimized string manipulation functions, including efficient concatenation methods.

Related benchmarks:

adding strings or template string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: adding string vs template string

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

adding string

template string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):