Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs `${true}`

Tests:

String()
let value = true; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(value)); }
.toString()
let value = true; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(value.toString()); }
`${string}`
let value = true; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${value}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
`${string}`

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to convert a boolean value (`true`) to a string:

1. `String()`: Using the built-in `String()` function.
2. `.toString()`: Using the `toString()` method.
3. Template literals: `${value}` (template string interpolation).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these three approaches, each with a different number of executions (100 iterations). The results are shown in the order of lowest to highest execution frequency per second.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `String()`: This approach is straightforward and efficient.
	* Pros: Simple to implement, good performance.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to function calls or string concatenation.
2. `.toString()`: Using the `toString()` method can be more explicit and readable.
	* Pros: More explicit conversion, potentially better code readability.
	* Cons: Can result in slower execution times compared to the built-in `String()` function.
3. Template literals: `${value}` (template string interpolation)
	* Pros: Can provide a concise and expressive way to convert values to strings, especially when working with template engines or dynamic strings.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to parsing and compilation, potentially slower execution times.

**Library/Template Engine Considerations**

None of the provided benchmark cases use any external libraries or template engines. The template literals approach relies on JavaScript's built-in template string interpolation feature.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a relatively simple feature of JavaScript: template string interpolation (${value}). This syntax is only available in modern JavaScript implementations (ECMAScript 2015+). If you're targeting older JavaScript versions, you'll need to use a different approach or polyfill the feature.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a more explicit conversion function, such as `Boolean.toString()`
* Employing string concatenation (`"true"` + "")
* Leveraging other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized string formatting capabilities (e.g., jQuery, React)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or readable as the original benchmark cases.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs `${true}` (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs `${string}`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

`${string}`

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):