Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
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:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var myNumber = 3;
Tests:
String() primitive
const myNumberAsString = String(myNumber);
Template literal interpolation
const myNumberAsString = `${myNumber}`;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
String() primitive
Template literal interpolation
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=588394" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Template literal interpolation
199.7M/s
String() primitive
197.1M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Template literal interpolation
199,672,368 Ops/sec
String() primitive
197,083,216 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Description** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to representing a number as a string in JavaScript: 1. Using the `String()` function (also known as the "primitive" or "function call" approach). 2. Using template literal interpolation (`${}`). **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.
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?