Benchmark: string concatenation `` vs addition

HTML Preparation code:

<p id="case"></p>

Tests:

concatenation ``
let a = 'first string' let b = 'second string' document.querySelector('#case').innerHTML = `${a} ${b}`;
concatenation +
let a = 'first string' let b = 'second string' document.querySelector('#case').innerHTML = a + ' ' + b;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concatenation ``
concatenation +

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 benchmark and explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two ways of concatenating strings in JavaScript: using template literals (`${}`) versus the `+` operator. The test cases are designed to run on a web page with a paragraph element that will display the concatenated string.

**Options Compared**

1. **Template Literals (`${}`)**: This approach uses the `${}` syntax to insert values into a string. It's a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).
2. **`+` Operator**: This is the traditional way of concatenating strings using the `+` operator.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Template Literals (`${}`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and concise, especially for complex string concatenations.
		- Less prone to errors due to the explicit syntax.
		- Better support for language features like auto-escaping and interpolation.
	+ Cons:
		- May have slower performance compared to traditional `+` operator due to the additional parsing and compilation steps required by the JavaScript engine.
* **`+` Operator**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time due to the simpler parsing and compilation process.
		- Widely supported across older browsers and versions of JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and more prone to errors, especially for complex concatenations.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser Support**: Both template literals and the `+` operator are widely supported in modern browsers. However, some older browsers may not support template literals.
* **JavaScript Engine Optimization**: Some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Chrome), have optimizations that can improve performance for template literals.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of the test cases use a library or special JavaScript features beyond the standard ECMAScript syntax. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have additional features or optimizations not included in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to string concatenation, consider:

* **String Interpolation**: Some build tools and frameworks use string interpolation for concatenation. For example, Webpack's `resolve.string` plugin uses template literals.
* **Sprintf-like libraries**: There are third-party libraries like `sprintf-js` that provide a printf-like syntax for formatting strings. However, these libraries can add overhead to your codebase.

In summary, this benchmark measures the performance difference between two common approaches to string concatenation in JavaScript: using template literals (`${}`) versus the `+` operator. While template literals offer more readability and fewer errors, they may have slightly slower performance compared to traditional `+` operator due to additional parsing and compilation steps required by the JavaScript engine.

Related benchmarks:

string concatenation `` vs addition (version: 0)

string concatenation `` vs + measurement

Comparing performance of: concatenation `` vs concatenation +

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concatenation ``

concatenation +

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):