Benchmark: Lodash toString vs js String Constructor vs append '' vs ``

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function native(values) {
    return values.map(String);
}

function lodash(values) {
    return values.map(_.toString);
}

const castFN = (v) => v + '';

function cast(values) {
    return values.map(castFN);
}

const wrapFN = (v) => `${v}`;

function wrap(values) {
    return values.map(wrapFN);
}

Tests:

Native
native([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])
Lodash
lodash([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])
cast
cast([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])
wrap
wrap([42, "42", undefined, null, true, [], {}, function() {}])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash
cast
wrap

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.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript methods to concatenate strings is an interesting benchmark.

**What's being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark that compares four different approaches to concatenate strings:

1. **Native**: The built-in `String()` function, which converts a value to its string representation.
2. **Lodash**: A popular utility library that provides a `toString()` method for converting values to strings.
3. **Cast**: A custom function `castFN` that concatenates a value with an empty string (`''`) using the `+` operator.
4. **Wrap**: A custom function `wrapFN` that wraps a value in double quotes (`"")` using template literals.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares these four approaches on a set of test cases, which include:

* An array of values with different types (numbers, strings, undefined, null, booleans, arrays, objects, and functions)
* The `+` operator for concatenation
* Template literals (`${value}`) for string interpolation

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Native**: This is the most straightforward way to concatenate strings in JavaScript. However, it may not be the fastest option, as it involves a function call and potentially some additional overhead.
2. **Lodash**: Using Lodash's `toString()` method can provide better performance than the native `String()` function, especially for larger datasets, since it avoids the function call overhead. On the other hand, it introduces an external dependency, which may not be desirable in all cases.
3. **Cast**: This approach is similar to Native, but uses a custom function instead of the built-in `+` operator. It's likely to perform similarly to Native, but without the overhead of the `String()` function call.
4. **Wrap**: Using template literals for string interpolation can be a convenient way to concatenate strings, especially when working with complex data structures. However, it may not be the fastest option, as it involves parsing and evaluating the template literal.

**Library usage**

Lodash is used in this benchmark, providing its `toString()` method for converting values to strings. This allows users to focus on comparing different string concatenation approaches without having to implement their own string conversion logic.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

Template literals ( `${value}` ) are used in the Wrap approach, which provides a convenient way to concatenate strings while avoiding explicit concatenation using `+` or `''`.

**Alternative approaches**

Other ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript include:

* Using the `+=` operator: `string += value`
* Using the `join()` method on an array of strings
* Using a string formatting library like Handlebars

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and usage scenarios compared to the approaches tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash toString vs js String Constructor vs append '' vs `` (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash vs cast vs wrap

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

cast

wrap

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):