Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat edit 2 concat 80

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = "".concat(name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${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:

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 compares three different approaches for concatenating strings in JavaScript: using the `+` operator, template literals (`${}`), and the `concat()` method.

**What is being tested?**

* How fast are each of these approaches at concatenating a string of 80 occurrences?
* Which approach performs best across various devices and browsers?

**Options Compared**

1. **Using `+` operator**: This involves using the `+` operator to concatenate two strings, e.g., `result = name + ": someItem"`. This method is simple but can lead to slower performance compared to other methods due to its overhead.
2. **Template Literals (`${}`)**: Template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create complex strings without concatenation.
3. **`concat()` method**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that concatenates two or more strings together.

**Pros and Cons**

* Using `+` operator:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to string creation and copying.
* Template Literals (`${}`):
	+ Pros: More readable, efficient, and can handle complex expressions.
	+ Cons: Requires support for ES6 and might be unfamiliar to older JavaScript environments.
* `concat()` method:
	+ Pros: Built-in function with decent performance.
	+ Cons: Can lead to slower performance if used excessively.

**Library Used**

None. This benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Template literals (`${}`) are a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create complex strings without concatenation.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to the options being tested, other approaches for concatenating strings might include:

* Using `String.prototype.join()` method
* Using a loop with `+=` operator
* Using a library like jQuery's `$.stringify()` function (not used in this benchmark)

Keep in mind that performance differences between these methods can be significant, especially when dealing with large amounts of string concatenation.

**Additional Considerations**

This benchmark is useful for:

* Comparing the performance of different string concatenation approaches
* Evaluating the impact of specific JavaScript features and syntax on performance
* Identifying potential bottlenecks in code that involves frequent string concatenation

As a software engineer, understanding these trade-offs can help you write more efficient and effective code.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat edit 2 concat 80 (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

No previous run results

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