Benchmark: number to string js

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 12, 123, 1234, 12345, 123456, 1234567, 12345678, 123456789];

Tests:

toString
numbers.forEach(n => n.toString());
string literal
numbers.forEach(n => `${n}`);
add empty string
numbers.forEach(n => n + "");
String
numbers.forEach(n => String(n));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
string literal
add empty string
String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
toString	18652294.0 Ops/sec
string literal	95947936.0 Ops/sec
add empty string	102983792.0 Ops/sec
String	15245204.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months 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 is designed to compare the performance of three different ways to convert an array of numbers into strings in JavaScript.

**Options Being Compared**

1. `toString()`: This method converts a number to a string using its built-in `toString()` method.
2. String Literal (`"..."`): This approach uses template literals (the `"..."` syntax) to create a new string from the input numbers.
3. `+ ""`: This method concatenates an empty string to the end of each number, effectively converting it to a string.
4. `String()`: This function converts a single value to a string.

**Pros and Cons**

* **toString()**: Lightweight, straightforward approach. However, it may not be as readable or efficient for larger arrays.
* String Literal (`"..."`): More readable than the other two options, but might incur some overhead due to template literal parsing.
* `+ ""`: Simple and widely supported, but can lead to unexpected behavior if used incorrectly (e.g., with non-string values).
* `String()`: Explicit conversion method, which can be less efficient due to the function call.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. The only JavaScript feature being tested is template literals (`"..."`), which is a relatively modern syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

Template literals (`"..."`) are used in one of the benchmark test cases (`"numbers.forEach(n => ${n});"`). This syntax allows for more readable and efficient string concatenation.

**Other Considerations**

* **Null or Undefined values**: The benchmark does not explicitly handle null or undefined values. In a real-world scenario, you would want to add checks to ensure these values are properly handled.
* **Large arrays**: The benchmark only uses small arrays of numbers. For larger arrays, the performance differences between these methods might become more pronounced.

**Alternatives**

Other ways to convert an array of numbers into strings in JavaScript include:

1. Using `map()` and `toString()`: `numbers.map(n => n.toString())`
2. Using `forEach()` with a callback function: `numbers.forEach(n => { /* do something */ })`
3. Using a custom loop with string concatenation: `for (let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) { var result += numbers[i]; }`

These alternatives might offer different performance profiles or trade-offs in terms of readability and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

number to string js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs string literal vs add empty string vs String

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

toString

string literal

add empty string

String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):