Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
string-interpolation-vs-string-type-coercion
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
string-interpolation vs string-type-coercion
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);
Tests:
string-interpolation
`${luckyNumber}`
string-type-coercion
String(luckyNumber)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
string-interpolation
string-type-coercion
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/124.0.0.0
Browser/OS:
Chrome 124 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=521297" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
string-interpolation
9.0M/s
string-type-coercion
3.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
string-interpolation
9,045,728 Ops/sec
string-type-coercion
3,531,523 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is testing two different approaches for performing string operations: 1. **String Interpolation**: This approach uses template literals (the backtick `` ` `` syntax) to insert a value into a string. 2. **String Type Coercion**: This approach converts the value to a string using the `String()` function. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * Template literals (string interpolation) * The `String()` function (string type coercion) **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Template Literals (String Interpolation)**: * Pros: + More readable and concise code + Can handle complex string templates with expressions and variables + Often faster than `String()` due to optimization by modern JavaScript engines * Cons: + May not be supported in older browsers or environments + Requires proper formatting and syntax 2. **`String()` Function (String Type Coercion)**: * Pros: + Widely supported across browsers and environments + Easy to implement, even for complex strings * Cons: + Less readable and concise code compared to template literals + May be slower than template literals due to the extra function call **Library Usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON data. However, template literals are a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Special JS Features/Syntax** This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's available in modern browsers. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The preparation code generates a random lucky number using `Math.round(Math.random() * 100)` and assigns it to the variable `luckyNumber`. This value is used in both test cases. **Other Alternatives** For string interpolation, alternative approaches could include: * Using `new Text()` or `new DOMText()` constructors * Utilizing string formatting functions like `format()` or `printf()` * Leveraging third-party libraries for templating For string type coercion, alternatives might include: * Using the `toString()` method directly on values * Employing other string conversion methods like `parseInt()` or ` parseFloat()` * Relying on library functions or polyfills for string manipulation
Related benchmarks
string-interpolation-vs-toString
string-interpolation-vs-toString-vs-plus-string
string-interpolation-vs-to-string
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?