Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
'a string`.toString() vs `${'a string'}`
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
a.toString() vs `${a}`
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var a = 'a string'
Tests:
a.toString()
a.toString()
`${a}`
`${a}`
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
a.toString()
`${a}`
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=608232" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
`${a}`
120.7M/s
a.toString()
89.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
`${a}`
120,741,704 Ops/sec
a.toString()
89,776,544 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different ways of converting a string to an upper case using the `toString()` method and template literals (`${'a string'}`). **Options Being Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`a.toString()`**: This option uses the `toString()` method on a string literal. 2. **`${'a string'}`**: This option uses template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to convert the string. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **`a.toString()`**: * Pros: Generally faster, as `toString()` is a built-in method that doesn't require additional parsing or compilation. * Cons: May not be as readable or intuitive for developers who are not familiar with it. 2. **`${'a string'}`**: * Pros: More readable and easier to understand than the `toString()` approach, especially for developers familiar with template literals. * Cons: May be slower due to additional parsing and compilation required by the template literal syntax. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no external libraries being used in this benchmark, only standard JavaScript features. **Other Considerations** When choosing between these two options, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your project and the trade-offs you're willing to make. If performance is critical, `a.toString()` might be a better choice. However, if readability and maintainability are more important, `${'a string'}` might be a better option. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for converting strings to upper case include: * Using the `toUpperCase()` method directly on the string: `a.toUpperCase()` * Using a library like Lodash's `upperCase` function * Using an external template engine like Handlebars or Mustache However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of performance as the `toString()` and template literal approaches. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided JavaScript code snippet: ```javascript var a = 'a string'; ``` Prepares a variable `a` with the value `'a string'`. I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.
Related benchmarks
String() vs toString
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?