Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Strings forming
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Backquote vs Array
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Backquote
const prefix = 'a'; const name = 'ABCD'; return `${prefix}${name}`
Array
const prefix = 'a'; const name = 'ABCD'; return [prefix, name].join('')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Backquote
Array
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark. The test cases measure how fast JavaScript can form strings using different approaches: **1. Template Literals (Backquote)** In this case, the benchmark definition is: ```javascript const prefix = 'a'; const name = 'ABCD'; return `${prefix}${name}`; ``` Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (`). The `prefix` variable is concatenated with the resulting expression, which is then returned. **Pros:** * Easy to read and maintain * Fast execution time due to compiler optimizations **Cons:** * May not be optimized for performance in older browsers or environments without ES6 support The test case measures how fast this approach executes compared to other methods. **2. Array Joining (Array)** In this case, the benchmark definition is: ```javascript const prefix = 'a'; const name = 'ABCD'; return [prefix, name].join(''); ``` This method uses an array with two elements and then calls the `join()` method on it to concatenate the strings. The resulting string is returned. **Pros:** * Works in older browsers and environments without ES6 support * Easy to implement **Cons:** * May not be as efficient as template literals due to the overhead of creating an array and calling `join()` The test case measures how fast this approach executes compared to other methods. Now, regarding the library mentioned in the benchmark definition: **None** There are no libraries mentioned in the provided JSON benchmark. However, if you're curious about popular JavaScript libraries for string manipulation or performance optimization, some examples include: * Lodash: A utility library with various functions for string manipulation and optimization. * String-Parse: A library that provides optimized string parsing functions. As for special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmarks, none are explicitly mentioned. However, keep in mind that ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) features like template literals, arrow functions, and classes might be required to run these benchmarks smoothly. Lastly, if you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance, some options include: * V8's `benchmark.js` library: A popular benchmarking framework for Node.js applications. * Google's `perf` library: A high-performance benchmarking library developed by Google engineers. * Mozilla's `test-parallel`: A test suite framework that can be used to create and run performance benchmarks. I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark!
Related benchmarks:
charCodeAt vs []
charAt vs substr vs substring vs slice test
rtu5efdhju52y4rsgd
string.at(-1) vs string[string.length-1]
string.at(-1) vs string[string.length-1] vs string.slice(-1)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?