Benchmark: String format vs template literal

Script Preparation code:

String.format = function() {
  return String._toFormattedString(false, arguments);
};
String._toFormattedString = function(l, j) {
  var c = '',
    e = j[0];
  for (var a = 0; true; ) {
    var f = e.indexOf('{', a),
      d = e.indexOf('}', a);
    if (f < 0 && d < 0) {
      c += e.slice(a);
      break;
    }
    if (d > 0 && (d < f || f < 0)) {
      c += e.slice(a, d + 1);
      a = d + 2;
      continue;
    }
    c += e.slice(a, f);
    a = f + 1;
    if (e.charAt(a) === '{') {
      c += '{';
      a++;
      continue;
    }
    if (d < 0) break;
    var h = e.substring(a, d),
      g = h.indexOf(':'),
      k = parseInt(g < 0 ? h : h.substring(0, g), 10) + 1,
      i = g < 0 ? '' : h.substring(g + 1),
      b = j[k];
    if (typeof b === 'undefined' || b === null) b = '';
    if (b.toFormattedString) c += b.toFormattedString(i);
    else if (l && b.localeFormat) c += b.localeFormat(i);
    else if (b.format) c += b.format(i);
    else c += b.toString();
    a = d + 1;
  }
  return c;
};

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

Template literal
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }
String format
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = String.format("{0}: 1, {1}: someItem", id, name); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template literal
String format

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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case, specifically comparing the performance of template literals and string formatting in JavaScript.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two scripts:

1. **Template Literal**: The script uses a template literal (`${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`) to generate a formatted string.
2. **String Format**: The script uses the `String.format` function (customized) to format a string.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Template Literals**: Using template literals for string formatting
* **String Formatting**: Using the customized `String.format` function

**Pros and Cons**

**Template Literals:**

Pros:

* Readability and maintainability are improved, as it allows for more human-readable syntax.
* Less error-prone, as the syntax is standardized.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the creation of a new string object in the browser's parser (this has been mitigated in recent browsers).
* Limited control over formatting options.

**String Formatting:**

Pros:

* Provides fine-grained control over formatting options.
* Can be faster, as it avoids creating a new string object.

Cons:

* Syntax can be less readable and maintainable than template literals.
* Error-prone due to the complexity of the syntax.

**Library and Purpose**

The `String._toFormattedString` function is a custom implementation of string formatting. Its purpose is to emulate the behavior of built-in JavaScript string formatting functions, allowing for compatibility with older browsers or specific use cases.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals are a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a concise and readable way to embed expressions inside strings. The syntax is `stringLiteral template literal expression`.

**Benchmark Result Interpretation**

The benchmark result shows that the **Template Literal** approach is significantly faster than the **String Format** approach, with an execution rate of approximately 4987 executions per second compared to 23647 executions per second.

Other Alternatives

For string formatting in JavaScript, other alternatives include:

* Using the `Intl` API for internationalized string formatting.
* Utilizing a library like Moment.js for date and time formatting.
* Employing a static string formatting utility, such as Handlebars or nunjucks.

Related benchmarks:

String format vs template literal (version: 0)

test speed, maybe also allocations

Comparing performance of: Template literal vs String format

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Template literal

String format

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):