Benchmark: String concatenation VS templating

Tests:

Concatenation
const root = "C:/"; const file = "path/to/file.txt"; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const path = root + file; }
Templating
const root = "C:/"; const file = "path/to/file.txt"; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const path = `${root}${file}`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Concatenation
Templating

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.

I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark!

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for creating file paths in JavaScript: string concatenation and templating (using template literals).

**Options Compared:**

1. **String Concatenation**: This approach involves using the `+` operator to concatenate strings.
2. **Templating (Template Literals)**: This approach uses template literals, which allow you to embed expressions inside string literals.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **String Concatenation:**
	+ Pros:
		- Wide support across browsers and JavaScript engines.
		- Simple to implement.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new string object on each concatenation.
		- Less readable and maintainable, especially for complex expressions.
* **Templating (Template Literals):**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution speed compared to string concatenation.
		- More readable and maintainable, thanks to the ability to embed expressions inside strings.
	+ Cons:
		- Not supported in older browsers or JavaScript engines.

**Library:**
In this benchmark, there is no explicit library used. However, template literals rely on a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) called "template literals." Template literals are supported by most modern JavaScript engines and browsers.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
Template literals use the `${}` syntax to embed expressions inside strings. This is a new feature in ES6 that allows you to create string templates with embedded expressions.

**Other Alternatives:**

* **String Interpolation**: Another approach is using string interpolation, which involves using functions like `String.format()` or `String.prototype.replace()` to insert values into a string template.
* **Function Composition**: You can also use function composition to create more complex string templates. This approach involves creating a function that takes input values and returns a formatted string.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient, readable, or maintainable as template literals.

**Benchmark Results:**
The benchmark results show the execution speeds for both concatenation and templating approaches on a specific device (Desktop, Windows 10). The "Templating" approach outperforms the "Concatenation" approach in terms of executions per second.

Related benchmarks:

String concatenation VS templating (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Concatenation vs Templating

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Concatenation

Templating

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):