Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-string-type-coercion

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>

Previous results

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

Test name	Executions per second
string-interpolation	9045728.0 Ops/sec
string-type-coercion	3531522.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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-string-type-coercion (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-type-coercion

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-type-coercion

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):