Benchmark: + '' vs .toString() v5 rand

Script Preparation code:

const randString = function () {
  return (Math.random() + 1).toString(36).substring(7);
};

const inputs = []
  .concat(Array.from({ length: 1000 }, () => Math.random()))
  .concat(Array.from({ length: 1000 }, () => randString()))
;

function getInputs() {
  return inputs;
}
function testToString(val) {
  return val.toString();
}
function testToStringCoercion(val) {
  return val + "";
}

Tests:

testToString
let nums = []; for (const input of getInputs()) { nums.push(testToString(input)); }
testToStringCoercion
let nums = []; for (const input of getInputs()) { nums.push(testToStringCoercion(input)); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
testToString
testToStringCoercion

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.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks, `testToString` and `testToStringCoercion`, which measure the performance of converting a value to a string using two different approaches.

**Approach 1: Using `toString()` method**

In this approach, the `toString()` method is used directly on the input values. This method converts an object or primitive value to its string representation.

**Approach 2: Using `+''` coercion**

In this approach, a string literal `' '` is coerced to a number using the `+` operator and then converted to a string using the `toString()` method. However, in modern JavaScript, `+''` coercion always returns the original value as a string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **`toString()` method:**
	+ Pros:
		- More readable code (no unnecessary coercion)
		- Less chance of errors due to incorrect coercion
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower for large input values or complex objects, as it requires more work to convert the value to a string.
* **`+''` coercion:**
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster than `toString()` method, especially for simple inputs (e.g., numbers, strings)
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to errors if the input value is not a number or has unexpected formatting
		- Less readable code

**Library and its purpose:**

The provided JSON uses the following library:

* `Math.random()`: generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). This function is used to generate random strings for testing.

**Special JavaScript features/syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript syntax and features, such as loops, functions, and string concatenation.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to measure the performance of converting a value to a string using other approaches, you could consider:

* Using `Number()` or `parseFloat()` instead of `toString()`
* Using template literals (`${}`) instead of `+''` coercion
* Using an external library like Lodash's `toJSON()` function

However, it's worth noting that the performance differences between these approaches may be negligible unless you're working with very large input values or complex objects.

**Benchmark preparation code explanation:**

The script preparation code defines two functions:

* `getInputs()`: returns an array of 1000 random numbers and 1000 random strings generated using the `randString()` function.
* `testToString(val)`: converts a value to a string using the `toString()` method.
* `testToStringCoercion(val)`: coerces a value to a number using `+''` and then converts it to a string using `toString()`.

Related benchmarks:

+ '' vs .toString() v5 rand (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: testToString vs testToStringCoercion

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

testToString

testToStringCoercion

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):