Benchmark: String literals creation vs already created string and concatination v2

Script Preparation code:

var BASE_FOLDER = './folder/'
var REPEAT_TIMES = 100_000

Tests:

String literals creation
var newFolder = `./folder/${'FILE_NAME'}`
Already created string and concatination
var newFolder = BASE_FOLDER + 'FILE_NAME'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String literals creation
Already created string and concatination

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String literals creation	870059008.0 Ops/sec
Already created string and concatination	27309246.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is testing two approaches to creating file names in JavaScript:

1. **String literals creation**: This approach uses template literals (``) to insert variables into a string template. In this case, the template includes `${'FILE_NAME'}` which will be replaced with an actual value.
2. **Already created string and concatenation**: This approach uses existing strings and concatenates them using the `+` operator or possibly other methods like `.concat()`. The specific implementation is shown in the benchmark definition code: `var newFolder = BASE_FOLDER + 'FILE_NAME'`.

**Options Compared:**
The two approaches are being compared to see which one performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **String literals creation (Template Literals)**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code.
		+ Can handle complex expressions and interpolations.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the parsing and evaluation process.
2. **Already created string and concatenation**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster for simple concatenations, as it avoids parsing and evaluation overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and maintainable code.
		+ More prone to errors, especially with complex expressions.

**Library Use:**
There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, if we look at the test cases, we can see that the `BASE_FOLDER` variable is used throughout the benchmark. In a real-world scenario, this could be an object or module being imported, but for simplicity, it's defined as a local variable.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The template literals (``) feature is being tested in this benchmark. Template literals were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a more expressive way to insert variables into strings.

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**
The script preparation code defines two variables:
	* `BASE_FOLDER`: set to a specific directory path.
	* `REPEAT_TIMES`: set to a large number of repetitions (100,000).

This code is executed before running the benchmark tests. The actual test code will vary depending on the individual test case.

**Other Alternatives:**
If you were to implement this benchmark yourself, some alternatives to consider:

1. **Using string formatting methods**: Instead of template literals, you could use `String.format()` or similar methods for string formatting.
2. **Using regex**: You could explore using regular expressions (regex) to concatenate strings and compare their performance.
3. **Using a different concatenation method**: Depending on the specific requirements, you might want to experiment with other concatenation methods, like `.concat()`, `+`, or even `StringBuilder` (if available).

Keep in mind that this benchmark is designed to test specific aspects of JavaScript performance, so the scope and alternatives may vary depending on your specific needs.

Related benchmarks:

String literals creation vs already created string and concatination v2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: String literals creation vs Already created string and concatination

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

String literals creation

Already created string and concatination

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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