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

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
`${}`
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different string formatting approaches: `String()`, `.toString()`, and template literals (using backticks, `${}`).

**Test Cases**

Each test case consists of a "Benchmark Definition" JSON object that defines a JavaScript function or code snippet. The purpose of this function is to create an array of strings using one of the three string formatting approaches.

1. **`String()`**: This test case creates an array `nums` and pushes `String(num)` into it, where `num` is a constant value (500). Essentially, it's creating an array with 100 elements, each containing the string representation of the original number.
2. **`.toString()`**: Similar to the first test case, but instead of using `String()`, it uses the `.toString()` method on the `num` variable to create the strings in the `nums` array.
3. **Template Literals (`${}`)**: This test case creates an array `nums` and pushes `${num}` into it. Again, `num` is a constant value (500). The template literals syntax allows for embedding expressions within double backticks.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in these test cases.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark utilizes JavaScript's template literals feature, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals are a way to embed expressions within string literals using backticks (`).

**Options Compared**

The three options being compared are:

1. `String()`: A function call that converts the original value to a string.
2. `.toString()` : A method call on the original value to convert it to a string.
3. Template Literals (`${}`) : A syntax feature that allows embedding expressions within double backticks.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`String()`**: Pros: Simple, widely supported. Cons: Creates an extra function call overhead, can lead to slower performance due to string concatenation.
2. **`.toString()`**: Pros: Similar to `String()`, but uses method call instead of function call, which might be slightly faster. Cons: Still involves a method call overhead.
3. **Template Literals (`${}`)**: Pros: Allows for more concise and readable code, eliminates the need for explicit string concatenation or function calls. Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the template literals parser.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these options, consider the trade-off between code readability and performance:

* For simple string formatting needs, `String()` or `.toString()` might be sufficient.
* For more complex string manipulations, Template Literals (`${}`) can provide a concise and readable solution.
* If performance is critical, benchmarking results like those provided by MeasureThat.net can help determine the best approach for your specific use case.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of three common string formatting approaches in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each option, developers can make informed decisions about which approach to use depending on their specific requirements.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

`${}`

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):