Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat edit

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";
var id = "id";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
using plus operator
using concat function
using template literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 148 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
using plus operator	1341760.1 Ops/sec
using concat function	988589.6 Ops/sec
using template literals	1333836.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, where users can compare the performance of different string concatenation approaches.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to test which method is most efficient for concatenating four strings in a loop. The script preparation code initializes two variables, `name` and `id`, with string values "name" and "id", respectively.

**Options Compared:**

Three methods are compared:

1. **Using the `+` operator**: This approach uses the implicit string concatenation feature of JavaScript, where the `+` symbol is used to concatenate strings.
2. **Using the `concat()` function**: This approach uses the `concat()` method provided by the String prototype, which takes one or more arguments and returns a new string containing the concatenated values.
3. **Using template literals**: This approach uses the template literal syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which allows embedding expressions inside backticks (`) to create a dynamic string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Implicit string concatenation using `+` operator**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, and doesn't require additional function calls.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to the creation of intermediate strings.
2. **Using the `concat()` function**:
	* Pros: More explicit and predictable than implicit concatenation, which can help avoid common errors like "concatenating strings with different character encodings".
	* Cons: Requires an additional function call, which can introduce overhead.
3. **Using template literals**:
	* Pros: Allows for dynamic string creation and easier code readability, especially when dealing with complex expressions or interpolation.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the complexity of parsing the template literal syntax.

**Other considerations:**

When choosing an approach, consider the trade-off between performance, readability, and maintainability. For simple concatenation tasks, the implicit `+` operator might be sufficient, but for more complex scenarios or when dealing with large amounts of data, using the `concat()` function or template literals can provide better performance and code quality.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript features/syntax:**

The benchmark uses ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) template literal syntax.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat edit (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):