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

Script Preparation code:

var name = "John";
var age = "30";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = age + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = "".concat(age, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `${age}: 1, ${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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. Using the `+` operator (also known as string concatenation)
2. Using the `concat()` function
3. Using template literals (`${...}}`)

The benchmark aims to find the most efficient method for concatenating four strings.

**Options Compared**

Here's a brief summary of each option:

* **Using the `+` operator**: This is a basic string concatenation using the `+` symbol between two or more strings. It creates a new string by combining the existing strings.
	+ Pros: Simple and widely supported, no additional dependencies needed.
	+ Cons: Creates a new string object on each iteration, which can lead to memory allocation overhead.
* **Using the `concat()` function**: This is a method provided by the `String` prototype that concatenates two or more strings. It returns a new string object.
	+ Pros: More efficient than using the `+` operator since it avoids creating temporary objects.
	+ Cons: Requires a separate call to the `concat()` method, which can add overhead.
* **Using template literals**: This is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 that allows for more readable string interpolation. Template literals use backticks (`) and placeholders (e.g., `${variable}`) to insert values into strings.
	+ Pros: More readable and efficient than using the `+` operator or `concat()` function, as it avoids creating temporary objects.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is required. All three options use built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Template literals are a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a more readable way to concatenate strings with values inserted into them.

**Considerations**

When choosing an approach for string concatenation, consider the following:

* Performance: If you need to concatenate multiple strings frequently, using template literals or `concat()` function might be more efficient than using the `+` operator.
* Readability: If readability is crucial, template literals can provide a nice balance between conciseness and clarity.

**Other Alternatives**

Besides the three options mentioned in the benchmark:

* Using `String.prototype.replace()` with a callback function to concatenate strings, which is less efficient due to regular expression parsing overhead.
* Using `Array.prototype.join()` to concatenate an array of strings, which requires creating an intermediate array and joining it into a single string.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are generally less optimal than the three options mentioned in the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

shvaer Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat 2 (version: 0)

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals

Created: 2 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):