Benchmark: backtick vs concat

Tests:

concat
const multiline = '-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n' + '\n' + 'wsFzBAABCgAGBQJiufmKACEJEBHOKOHPsVffFiEEW786BE7qV8Bqq1hQEc4o\n' + '4c+xV99meg//a8quAPcWbxraMaEIFckqX80ZcqObZHLM53RfzKf27eQ9qqfb\n' + 'V0Bufc/afEUc0YfHO140XNPYi/cid27MWGdoP3NCu9EzZfH8BWuHu3Vrtm9G\n' + 'KFvr1PYbvFYKlOMapeUIZbof4BMsazgRiK/OULmUGAhunds/UpT7mV8RXvvf\n' + 'FcbLnUGbzEp3sdepEHccFRuPZsdL4YoQ6rPrAD9Zcckp4T2NPRPeld0qdjLx\n' + '+LkFKHiqfQgJBQDT2+gtZCNVAgXJdLfu+qa31NiF/eNKCp3GWHuiIQy2WQ0O\n' + 'B8g+LfRNkJXeEm7E8MecNrf4joBJwuHB0ohslHxy5TbFEX3LNJr7iBFLiKxI\n' + '8DgHuGMvILbL4YHPd3AYAPfGHBCOLOKCfhg0FpUwYU+SKlNk33Ibgf4q3UvK\n' + 'PMva41dX1U3wlS2j1WBPyCcP15YSzJ3SFH65CSUMi4kCeiXQZ+WYTEuvLtf5\n' + 't/xiPwuxL7mTmpkoCZ5+rMZxsy/ERoK2XK37TUvlmaTkbnFgxiLBuY3huV2a\n' + 'nWhPFWxuNBPg3tsiiiwPVt8UtlcORg0EDFtH4MMgZmA6LaSoDIKPeLMODO3a\n' + 'Pw+6pwnLkXKujHqf4pGNh9R3zES5QlQT5IJndDZr1kLbSSl2dmXgEcIbrCaX\n' + 'yFSrUzJ88QzBir+5OKBNqgO7mt9SQIoPNXc=\n' + '=x72+\n' + '-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n'
backticks
const multiline = `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsFzBAABCgAGBQJiufmKACEJEBHOKOHPsVffFiEEW786BE7qV8Bqq1hQEc4o 4c+xV99meg//a8quAPcWbxraMaEIFckqX80ZcqObZHLM53RfzKf27eQ9qqfb V0Bufc/afEUc0YfHO140XNPYi/cid27MWGdoP3NCu9EzZfH8BWuHu3Vrtm9G KFvr1PYbvFYKlOMapeUIZbof4BMsazgRiK/OULmUGAhunds/UpT7mV8RXvvf FcbLnUGbzEp3sdepEHccFRuPZsdL4YoQ6rPrAD9Zcckp4T2NPRPeld0qdjLx +LkFKHiqfQgJBQDT2+gtZCNVAgXJdLfu+qa31NiF/eNKCp3GWHuiIQy2WQ0O B8g+LfRNkJXeEm7E8MecNrf4joBJwuHB0ohslHxy5TbFEX3LNJr7iBFLiKxI 8DgHuGMvILbL4YHPd3AYAPfGHBCOLOKCfhg0FpUwYU+SKlNk33Ibgf4q3UvK PMva41dX1U3wlS2j1WBPyCcP15YSzJ3SFH65CSUMi4kCeiXQZ+WYTEuvLtf5 t/xiPwuxL7mTmpkoCZ5+rMZxsy/ERoK2XK37TUvlmaTkbnFgxiLBuY3huV2a nWhPFWxuNBPg3tsiiiwPVt8UtlcORg0EDFtH4MMgZmA6LaSoDIKPeLMODO3a Pw+6pwnLkXKujHqf4pGNh9R3zES5QlQT5IJndDZr1kLbSSl2dmXgEcIbrCaX yFSrUzJ88QzBir+5OKBNqgO7mt9SQIoPNXc= =x72+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat
backticks

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the test case doesn't specify any specific code to be executed. Instead, it relies on the `Test Name` to determine what code to run.

**Individual Test Cases**

We have two test cases:

1. **concat**: This test case uses the standard concatenation operator (`+`) to concatenate a multiline string.
2. **backticks**: This test case uses template literals (also known as backticks) to create a multiline string.

**Options Being Compared**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two options:

1. Standard concatenation using the `+` operator
2. Template literals (backticks)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Standard Concatenation (`+`)**

Pros:

* Wide browser support and compatibility
* Easy to understand and implement

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues if dealing with large strings or complex expressions

**Template Literals (Backticks)**

Pros:

* More readable and maintainable, especially for multiline strings
* Improved performance compared to standard concatenation

Cons:

* May not be supported by older browsers (although this is unlikely in modern times)

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, template literals do rely on a specific JavaScript feature that's enabled through the `String.prototype Templating` engine.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Template literals use a special syntax in JavaScript called "string interpolation," which allows us to embed expressions within strings. This syntax is supported by most modern browsers and JavaScript engines.

**Latest Benchmark Result**

The latest benchmark result shows the performance of both options:

* **backticks**: 186,200,8064 executions per second
* **concat**: 183,18,3576 executions per second

This suggests that template literals (backticks) are significantly faster than standard concatenation in this specific test case.

Overall, template literals seem to be the winning choice in this benchmark, offering better performance and readability compared to standard concatenation.

Related benchmarks:

backtick vs concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: concat vs backticks

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concat

backticks

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):