Benchmark: number to string: String() vs template

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
template string
constructor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
template string	2779059.5 Ops/sec
constructor	916910.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark "number to string: String() vs template" compares two different approaches for converting numbers to strings in JavaScript: using template literals (template strings) and using the String constructor.

### Approaches Compared
1. **Template Strings**:
   - **Code**: 
     ```javascript
     let nums = [];
     for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
       nums.push(`${i}`);
     }
     ```
   - **Test Name**: "template string"

2. **String Constructor**:
   - **Code**: 
     ```javascript
     let nums = [];
     for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
       nums.push(String(i));
     }
     ```
   - **Test Name**: "constructor"

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

- **Template Strings**:
  - **Pros**: 
    - Cleaner and more intuitive syntax, especially for string interpolation.
    - Makes it easier to include variables and expressions seamlessly within a string.
  - **Cons**: 
    - Slightly less readable for very simplistic conversions compared to using the String constructor directly, though this is typically negligible.

- **String Constructor**:
  - **Pros**:
    - Directly conveys the intention of converting a variable to a string, which may be clearer to some developers.
  - **Cons**:
    - Less flexible than template literals for complex string formatting.
    - Uses more boilerplate when combining variables or expressions with text.

### Benchmark Results
The benchmark results showcase a performance differential between the two approaches:
- **Template Strings** achieved approximately **2,779,059.5 executions per second**.
- **String Constructor** achieved approximately **916,910.25 executions per second**.

This indicates that using template strings is significantly more performant in this scenario, likely due to the optimizations applied by the JavaScript engine for template literals.

### Considerations
- **Performance**: In high-performance contexts where large-scale number-to-string conversions are required, the choice of approach can substantially impact overall performance. Given the stark difference in execution speed seen in the benchmark results, template strings may be the preferred choice.
- **Readability and Maintenance**: Depending on the team’s familiarity with JavaScript, readability may play a significant role in choosing the approach. Template strings are commonly recommended in modern JavaScript code due to their ease of use.

### Alternatives
Other alternatives for converting numbers to strings in JavaScript could include:
- **String Concatenation**:
  ```javascript
  nums.push(i + '');
  ``` 
  This approach can also be quick but may be less clear to someone reading the code.

- **`.toString()` Method**:
  ```javascript
  nums.push(i.toString());
  ```
  This method directly calls the `toString()` function on the number and is also efficient but less concise than the other methods.

### Conclusion
Overall, this benchmark effectively illustrates the performance benefits of utilizing template literals over the String constructor when converting numbers to strings, while also considering alternative approaches that might suit different coding styles or project requirements.

Related benchmarks:

number to string: String() vs template (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: template string vs constructor

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

template string

constructor

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):