Benchmark: String vs. Template Literal with var

Tests:

Template Literal String
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = `Some string $i`; }
Regular String
for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) { let result = "Some string"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Template Literal String
Regular String

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Template Literal String	43448872.0 Ops/sec
Regular String	43785784.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

In this benchmark defined on MeasureThat.net, we are comparing the performance of two different approaches to string construction in JavaScript: using **template literals** and **regular strings**. Both methods are commonly used for creating and manipulating strings, but they differ in syntax and performance characteristics.

### Test Cases Explained:

1. **Template Literal String**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: 
     ```javascript
     for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) {
         let result = `Some string $i`;
     }
     ```
   - **Description**: This uses a template literal, which is defined by backticks (`` ` ``) and allows the inclusion of expressions (in this case, the variable `i`) directly within the string.

2. **Regular String**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: 
     ```javascript
     for (let i = 0; i < 80; ++i) {
         let result = "Some string";
     }
     ```
   - **Description**: This uses a standard string enclosed in double quotes (`"`). Here, the variable `i` is not included in the string, which means the string is static and the expression isn't evaluated.

### Pros and Cons:

#### Template Literals:
- **Pros**:
  - Allows embedding of expressions, which can make code more readable and concise.
  - Supports multi-line strings and advanced formatting without the need for concatenation or escape characters.
  
- **Cons**:
  - Slightly more overhead in terms of performance due to parsing the template and interpolating the variables.
  - Not all developers are familiar with the syntax, especially those coming from older versions of JavaScript.

#### Regular Strings:
- **Pros**:
  - Generally faster for string creation because they do not involve any parsing for variables or expressions; this can be beneficial in performance-sensitive scenarios.
  - Familiar to all JavaScript developers, as it has been around since the inception of the language.
  
- **Cons**:
  - Less readable for complex string constructions that require concatenation with variables or multi-line formatting, which may lead to more complex code.

### Benchmark Results:
From the benchmark results, we can see the following execution rates:

- **Regular String**: 43,785,784 operations per second
- **Template Literal String**: 43,448,872 operations per second

This indicates that creating strings with regular string syntax is slightly faster than using template literals, though both approaches are relatively performant.

### Other Considerations:
- **Browser Engine Variations**: Performance can vary across different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome, SpiderMonkey in Firefox), meaning benchmarks could yield different results on different platforms or versions.
- **Use Cases**: The choice between these two methods should consider the context. For simple, static strings, regular strings may suffice. For cases where readability and maintainability are essential, template literals could be preferred despite any minor performance overhead.

### Alternatives:
- **String Concatenation**: Prior to template literals, concatenating strings using the `+` operator was a common approach. Example: `"Some string " + i`. This method can become cumbersome and error-prone with complex strings.
- **String Interpolation Libraries**: Utilizing libraries like lodash or others to format strings can also serve various string manipulation needs, but may introduce additional overhead due to library size and complexity.
  
### Conclusion:
Overall, both template literals and regular strings have their place in JavaScript development. The decision on which to use should be based on the specific requirements of the code, the emphasis on performance versus readability, and the familiarity of the team with the modern JavaScript syntax.

Related benchmarks:

String vs. Template Literal with var (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Template Literal String vs Regular String

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Template Literal String

Regular String

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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