Benchmark: Array length to string

Tests:

.toString
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(({}).toString()); }
string template
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${{}}`); }
String()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String({})); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.toString
string template
String()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/105.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.toString	725544.9 Ops/sec
string template	297210.0 Ops/sec
String()	61755.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, which measure the performance of specific code snippets in different browsers and environments. The provided JSON data represents three individual test cases:

1. `Array length to string`: This benchmark tests how different approaches convert an empty array (`[]`) into a string.
2. `string template`: This benchmark measures the performance of using template literals (e.g., `${}`) to create strings.
3. `String()`: This benchmark compares the performance of calling the `String()` function to create strings.

**Options compared**

In each test case, two or three approaches are being compared:

* In `Array length to string`, the options being compared are:
	+ `{}.toString()` (dot notation)
	+ `${}` (template literal)
	+ `String({})` (function call)
* In `string template`, only one option is being compared: `${}` (template literal)
* In `String()`, three options are being compared: `String({})`, `{}.toString()`, and `${}`

**Pros and cons of each approach**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **`.toString()`**: This is a built-in method in JavaScript that converts an object into a string. It has a relatively low overhead, but it may not be the most readable or efficient way to create strings.
	* Pros: Lightweight, widely supported
	+ Cons: May not work as expected with all objects, can lead to unexpected results if used incorrectly
2. **Template literals (`${}`)**: This is a modern feature in JavaScript that allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using the `${}` syntax. It's a concise and readable way to create strings.
	* Pros: Concise, readable, works well with most objects
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments, can lead to security issues if used with untrusted input
3. **`String()` function**: This is a simple but explicit way to convert an object into a string using the `String()` function.
	* Pros: Explicit, works well with most objects
	+ Cons: May have a higher overhead than other approaches

**Libraries and special features**

None of the provided benchmarks use any libraries or special JavaScript features. The code snippets are simple and straightforward.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to create strings in JavaScript, consider the following:

* Using `JSON.stringify()` or `Array.prototype.join()`: These methods can be used to create strings from arrays or objects.
* Utilizing template engines like Handlebars or Pug: These engines allow you to write templates with dynamic data and generate HTML output.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and compatibility.

Related benchmarks:

Array length to string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .toString vs string template vs String()

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

.toString

string template

String()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):