Benchmark: toString vs template literals fixed

Script Preparation code:

function getRandom() {
  return Math.random() * (999_999_999_999 - 100_000_000_000) + 1_000_000_000;
}

var number = 123_456_789_000

Tests:

random + .toString()
getRandom().toString()
random + template literal
`${getRandom()}`
.toString()
number.toString()
template literal
`${number}`

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
random + .toString()
random + template literal
.toString()
template literal

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 JSON and explain what's being tested, along with their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to converting numbers to strings:

1. `toString()`
2. Template literals (``${expression}``)

**Script Preparation Code**

The script prepares a random number `number` using the `getRandom()` function:
```javascript
function getRandom() {
  return Math.random() * (999_999_999_999 - 100_000_000_000) + 1_000_000_000;
}

var number = 123_456_789_000;
```
**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark defines four test cases:

1. `getRandom().toString()`: Converts the random number generated by `getRandom()` to a string using the `toString()` method.
2. ``${getRandom()}``: Uses template literals to convert the random number to a string.
3. `number.toString()`: Converts the fixed number `number` to a string using the `toString()` method.
4. `${number}`: Uses template literals to convert the fixed number `number` to a string.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON, but it's likely that the benchmark uses built-in JavaScript features and functions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses template literals (``${expression}``), which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Template literals allow you to embed expressions inside backticks (``) and evaluate them at runtime.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. `toString()`: This method is straightforward and widely supported across browsers. However, it may incur additional overhead due to the need to call a method on an object.
2. Template literals (``${expression}``): This approach can be more concise and readable than calling `toString()` explicitly. However, it may also incur additional overhead due to the need to parse and evaluate the expression inside the backticks.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

1. Template literals (` `${getRandom()}``) perform better than `toString()` for this specific benchmark.
2. The fixed number `number` with template literals (``${number}``) performs slightly worse than using `toString()` on a fixed value, but still outperforms `toString()` when used with the random number generated by `getRandom()`.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other approaches to converting numbers to strings, such as:

1. Using `parseInt()` and concatenating the string: `number + ''`
2. Using a custom function to convert the number to a string

However, these alternatives may not be as efficient or expressive as using template literals or `toString()`.

Related benchmarks:

toString vs template literals fixed (version: 0)

add random numbers

Comparing performance of: random + .toString() vs random + template literal vs .toString() vs template literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

random + .toString()

random + template literal

.toString()

template literal

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):