Benchmark: number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor(2)

Script Preparation code:

const i = 123456781235487945462131654987564647

Tests:

toString
i.toString()
template literal
`${i}`
string literal concat
"" + i;
String()
String(i)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toString
template literal
string literal concat
String()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/116.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 116 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

template literal

72.4M/s

toString

62.1M/s

string literal concat

59.5M/s

String()

54.7M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ template literal	72,365,496 Ops/sec
toString	62,115,832 Ops/sec
string literal concat	59,487,740 Ops/sec
String()	54,683,016 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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of converting an integer to a string in four different ways:

1. Using the `toString()` method
2. Template literals (``${i}``)
3. String literal concatenation (`"" + i`)
4. Creating a new string using the `String()` constructor

**Options Compared**

The options are compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured in executions per second.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **`toString()`**: This method is widely supported and efficient. However, it may involve more overhead due to the dynamic dispatch mechanism used by JavaScript.
2. **Template Literals (`${i}`)**: Template literals are a relatively new feature in JavaScript that provides a concise way to create strings. They are likely to be faster than string concatenation but may incur some overhead due to the parsing and compilation required for this syntax.
3. **String Literal Concatenation (`"" + i`)**: This approach is simple and widely supported, but it can be slower than other methods due to the creation of intermediate strings.
4. **`String()` constructor**: Creating a new string using the `String()` constructor involves more overhead compared to other approaches.

**Libraries and Special Features Used**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

Template literals (the `${i}` syntax) are a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They provide a concise way to create strings by interpolating variables into the string template. This syntax is not available in older versions of JavaScript and may be disabled in certain browsers.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing the performance of these approaches, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Browser support: Ensure that each approach works correctly across different browsers.
* Code readability: Choose an approach that balances performance with code readability and maintainability.
* Consistency: Use consistent coding practices throughout your project.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for converting integers to strings include:

1. Using the `Number()` function instead of `toString()`: This can be a simpler alternative, but it may incur some overhead due to the dynamic dispatch mechanism used by JavaScript.
2. Using a third-party library or utility function: Depending on your specific requirements and performance needs, using a third-party library or utility function might provide better results.

In summary, this benchmark provides a useful insight into the relative performance of different approaches for converting integers to strings in JavaScript. By considering factors such as browser support, code readability, and consistency, developers can choose an approach that balances performance with maintainability.

number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor(2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `toString vs template literal vs string literal concat vs String()`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toString

template literal

string literal concat

String()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor(2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs template literal vs string literal concat vs String()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toString

template literal

string literal concat

String()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `toString vs template literal vs string literal concat vs String()`