Benchmark: String() primitive vs template literal interpolation for representing a number as a string

Script Preparation code:

var myNumber = 3;

Tests:

String() primitive
const myNumberAsString = String(myNumber);
Template literal interpolation
const myNumberAsString = `${myNumber}`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String() primitive
Template literal interpolation

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String() primitive	197083216.0 Ops/sec
Template literal interpolation	199672368.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to representing a number as a string in JavaScript:

1. Using the `String()` function (also known as the "primitive" or "function call" approach).
2. Using template literal interpolation (`${}`).

**Options Compared**

In this case, we have only two options being compared: using the `String()` function and using template literal interpolation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`String()` Function (Primitive Approach)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across different JavaScript implementations.
		+ Can be used in older browsers that don't support template literals.
	* Cons:
		+ May result in slower performance due to the overhead of function calls.
2. **Template Literal Interpolation (`${}`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster than using `String()`, as it eliminates the need for an extra function call.
		+ Can be more readable and concise, especially when dealing with complex string formatting.
	* Cons:
		+ Not supported in older browsers that don't have modern JavaScript features.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library being used in this benchmark. The `String()` function is a built-in JavaScript method, while template literal interpolation is a language feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark specifically targets the use of template literal interpolation (`${}`), which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ES6.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Compatibility: If you need to support older browsers, using `String()` might be a better option.
* Performance: Template literal interpolation is generally faster, but only if the browser supports it.
* Readability and conciseness: Template literals can make your code more readable and concise when dealing with complex string formatting.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to template literal interpolation, you could consider:

* Using a string formatting library like `lodash.string` or `sprintf-js`.
* Implementing your own custom string formatting function.
* Using other template engines or templating languages that provide similar functionality.

Related benchmarks:

String() primitive vs template literal interpolation for representing a number as a string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() primitive vs Template literal interpolation

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String() primitive

Template literal interpolation

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):