Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Time to string representation
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
String.prototype.slice vs String.prototype.concat
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
String.prototype.slice
const minutes = 1; const seconds = 2; var other = `${`0${minutes}`.slice(-2)}:${`0${seconds}`.slice(-2)}`
String.prototype.concat
const minutes = 1; const seconds = 2; var other = `${String(seconds).length === 1 ? `0${seconds}` : seconds}:${String(minutes).length === 1 ? `0${minutes}` : minutes}`;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
String.prototype.slice
String.prototype.concat
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to formatting strings in JavaScript: `slice()` and `concat()`. The test cases aim to compare the execution speed of these two methods in a specific scenario. **Options Compared** There are only two options being compared: 1. **String.prototype.slice()**: This method takes a string as input, extracts a subset of characters from it, and returns the extracted substring. 2. **String.prototype.concat()**: This method concatenates one or more strings together to form a new string. **Pros and Cons** * **String.prototype.slice()**: + Pros: More efficient for extracting a fixed-length substring from a string. + Cons: May not be as convenient for formatting strings, especially when dealing with variable lengths. * **String.prototype.concat()**: + Pros: Convenient for formatting strings, but can be slower than `slice()` due to the overhead of concatenating strings. + Cons: Can lead to performance issues if the concatenated string is very large. **Library and Purpose** In the provided benchmark definition, there are no libraries explicitly mentioned. However, both `String.prototype.slice()` and `String.prototype.concat()` rely on the built-in JavaScript String object and its prototype methods. **Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two standard string formatting approaches. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative string formatting methods, some other options include: * **Template literals**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), template literals allow for more concise and expressive string formatting using backticks (`) instead of concatenation. * **String.replace()**: Another method for replacing substrings within a string, which can be useful for specific use cases. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided benchmark definition includes no script preparation code or HTML preparation code. This suggests that the test cases are designed to be self-contained and don't rely on any external setup or dependencies. Overall, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison of two common string formatting methods in JavaScript, highlighting their pros and cons for different use cases.
Related benchmarks:
indexOf / includes
whitespace detection 2
For Loop vs For Of in iterating strings
toBase62String
String to number, parseInt, +, or * 1
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?