Benchmark: String literal vs Template literal assignment

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

/*your preparation JavaScript code goes here
To execute async code during the script preparation, wrap it as function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction, example:*/
async function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction() {
    // This function is optional, feel free to remove it.
    // await someThing();
}

const TEST_ITERATIONS=100000;

Tests:

String literal
/*When writing async/deferred tests, use `deferred.resolve()` to mark test as done*/ for (let i=0; i++; i<TEST_ITERATIONS) { const stringLiteral = "This is a string without variables or concatting"; }
Template literal
for (let i=0; i++; i<TEST_ITERATIONS) { const templateLiteral = `This is a string without variables or concatting`; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String literal
Template literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 134 on Android

View result in a separate tab

String literal

45.3M/s

Template literal

42.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ String literal	45,342,740 Ops/sec
Template literal	42,090,692 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark focuses on comparing the performance of string literals and template literals in JavaScript. This benchmark assesses whether there is a significant difference in execution speed between the two methods of defining strings.

### Options Compared
1. **String Literal**:
   - Defined using standard quotes: `const stringLiteral = "This is a string without variables or concatting";`
   - This approach is straightforward and has been part of JavaScript since its inception.

2. **Template Literal**:
   - Defined using backticks: `const templateLiteral = `This is a string without variables or concatting`;`
   - Template literals are a more recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and can include embedded expressions, multiline strings, and enhanced readability for complex strings.

### Pros and Cons
#### String Literal:
- **Pros**:
  - Simplicity: The syntax is familiar and straightforward for developers.
  - Slightly more performant in some cases (as evidenced by benchmark results) due to its less complex parsing.
  
- **Cons**:
  - Limited functionality: Cannot include expressions or multigline strings without resorting to concatenation and awkward syntax.

#### Template Literal:
- **Pros**:
  - Enhanced functionality: Allows for embedding expressions and can span multiple lines, making them very useful for dynamic strings.
  - Improved readability for complex strings.

- **Cons**:
  - Possible performance overhead: In environments where performance is critical and simple string formats suffice, template literals could introduce slight performance degradation.

### Other Considerations
- **Benchmark Result Analysis**: The benchmark results indicate that both string literals and template literals have high executions per second, with string literals being slightly faster in the tested environment (240,626,592 vs 232,897,440 executions per second). The difference in speed might have implications in performance-sensitive applications, though both options are fast.

- **Browser/Platform Variability**: Performance could vary across different browsers and devices. It's essential to consider testing in various environments for a comprehensive analysis.

### Library and Features Used
The benchmark does not utilize any external JavaScript libraries or features beyond basic string handling. The tests fall within the standard capabilities of JavaScript without any external dependencies.

### Alternatives
In terms of string processing in JavaScript, other alternatives include:
- **Concatenation**: Using the `+` operator to concatenate strings, which is less readable and can be inefficient in terms of performance.
- **String Constructor**: Using `new String()`, which is generally discouraged because it creates string objects rather than primitive strings and can lead to unintended complications in handling.
- **String Interpolation Libraries**: While not necessary in most scenarios due to native support for template literals, libraries such as `lodash` might be used for more complex string manipulations and templating scenarios.

In summary, the benchmark offers valuable insights into the comparative performance of string and template literals, highlighting the trade-offs in simplicity and performance versus enhanced functionality and readability. For developers, the choice between the two depends largely on the specific use case and the need for either performance or advanced string handling features.

String literal vs Template literal assignment (version: 1)

Is there a difference between constant string and a constant template literal assignment?

Comparing performance of: `String literal vs Template literal`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String literal

Template literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

String literal vs Template literal assignment (version: 1)

Is there a difference between constant string and a constant template literal assignment?

Comparing performance of: String literal vs Template literal

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String literal

Template literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `String literal vs Template literal`