Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Implicit vs Explicit .toString()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Explicit vs Implicit
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Explicit
var a = 10; a.toString();
Implicit
var a = 10 + "";
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Explicit
Implicit
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/128.0.0.0
Browser/OS:
Chrome 128 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=541028" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
Explicit
130211208.0 Ops/sec
Implicit
236800672.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of implicit and explicit string conversion in JavaScript. The benchmark is designed to measure how fast the browser can execute a certain code snippet, which involves converting an integer value to a string using two different approaches: explicit `toString()` method call or implicit string concatenation. **Options being compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **Explicit `.toString()`**: This approach uses the `toString()` method explicitly to convert the integer value to a string. 2. **Implicit string concatenation**: In this approach, an empty string (`""`)) is concatenated with the integer value using the `+` operator, effectively converting the integer to a string. **Pros and Cons of each approach** * **Explicit `.toString()`**: + Pros: More readable code, explicit intent clear. + Cons: May incur additional overhead due to method call, slower performance compared to implicit concatenation. * **Implicit string concatenation**: + Pros: Faster performance, no additional overhead due to method call. + Cons: Less readable code, may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully. **Library usage** There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that both approaches are part of the standard JavaScript language and don't require any external libraries. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark uses a feature of modern JavaScript: template literals (introduced in ECMAScript 2015). Although not explicitly mentioned, this is implied by the use of single quotes (`'...'`) in the `Benchmark Definition` JSON. Template literals provide a concise way to embed expressions inside string literals. **Other alternatives** For measuring performance and benchmarking JavaScript code, you might consider using: * **Bench.js**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library that provides more features and configuration options than MeasureThat.net. * **JBM (JavaScript Benchmark)**: Another widely-used benchmarking framework for JavaScript, offering more advanced features like multi-threaded benchmarks and support for additional platforms. * **js-perf**: A simple, lightweight benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring performance in JavaScript environments. Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and MeasureThat.net might be suitable for a specific use case or audience.
Related benchmarks:
Implicit vs Explicit convertion
Explicit vs Implicit convertion
toFixed() vs Math.round().toString()
Date: Object.prototype.toString vs instanceof
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?