Benchmark: test-string-1 - MeasureThat.net

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();
}

Tests:

concat
let a = "hello " for(i=0; i<10; i++){ a += "world" }
template string
let a = "hello " for(i=0; i<10; i++){ `${a} world` }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat
template string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_3_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3.2 Mobile/22D82 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 18 on iOS 18.3.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
concat	24325188.0 Ops/sec
template string	109390760.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON assesses the performance of string concatenation in JavaScript through two different approaches: using the traditional concatenation operator (`+`) and using template literals.

### Test Cases

1. **Concatenation with `+` Operator:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:**
     ```javascript
     let a = "hello "
     for(i=0; i<10; i++){
         a += "world"
     }
     ```
   - **Test Name:** `concat`
   
   In this case, a string begins with "hello " and then a loop runs 10 times to concatenate "world" to the string using the traditional `+=` operator. This is a straightforward approach and widely used for string building, especially in older JavaScript code.

2. **Concatenation with Template Literals:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:**
     ```javascript
     let a = "hello "
     for(i=0; i<10; i++){
         `${a} world`
     }
     ```
   - **Test Name:** `template string`
   
   This approach uses JavaScript template literals (enclosed in backticks) to output a new string with the existing string `a` and "world". Template literals are a more modern feature introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015) and allow for easier string interpolation and multi-line strings.

### Performance Results

From the latest benchmark results:

- **Template String:**
  - **Executions Per Second:** 5,507,031.5
- **Concatenation:**
  - **Executions Per Second:** 4,865,324.5

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### Concatenation using `+` Operator:
- **Pros:**
  - **Simplicity and Familiarity:** It is straightforward and likely familiar to developers who have been using JavaScript for a long time.
  - **Compatibility:** Older syntax that works across nearly all JavaScript environments without any issues.

- **Cons:**
  - **Performance:** It is generally slower than template literals in more complex concatenations, especially if multiple variables or expressions are involved.
  - **Readability:** Can become cumbersome and harder to read when combining multiple strings and variables.

#### Concatenation using Template Literals:
- **Pros:**
  - **Performance:** Often faster, especially in cases involving multiple variables.
  - **Readability:** Much easier to read and maintain, as placeholders can be inserted without cumbersome formatting.
  - **Multiline Strings:** Allows for literally-bound multi-line text, which can be valuable for HTML or larger blocks of text.

- **Cons:**
  - **Compatibility Issues:** Older environments that do not support ES6 may have trouble interpreting template literals, requiring transpilation (e.g., using Babel) or polyfills.

### Other Considerations
- **Performance Environment:** The results are from a specific environment (Chrome 134 on macOS). Different browsers might show different performance characteristics, necessitating testing across environments for critical applications.
- **Future Alternatives:** While JavaScript continues to evolve, more abstraction layers, such as libraries or frameworks, could be used for string manipulations. However, most of these alternatives will likely depend on the basic concatenation mechanisms of JavaScript underneath.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a clear comparison of two string concatenation techniques in JavaScript, highlighting performance differences, usability, and potential issues with compatibility. As JavaScript evolves, understanding the efficiency of such operations helps developers choose the best approach for their applications.

Related benchmarks:

test-string-1 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: concat vs template string

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

concat

template 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):