Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
String template vs join
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
String template vs Join
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
String template
const a = '12'; const b = () => '13'; const c = 14; let test; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { test = `${a}#${b()}#${c}`; }
Join
const a = '12'; const b = () => '13'; const c = 14; let test; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { test = [a, b(), c].join('#'); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
String template
Join
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark. The main goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using JavaScript templates (String template) and using the `join()` method with an array (Join). **Approach 1: String Template** In this approach, a string is created by concatenating three values using template literals (`${a}#${b()}#${c}`). This allows for more readable and flexible code. Pros: * More readable and maintainable code * Can handle nested expressions or formatting Cons: * May incur overhead due to the use of template literals (e.g., parsing, compilation) * Limited control over the string creation process **Approach 2: Join** In this approach, an array is created with three values and then the `join()` method is used to concatenate them with a separator (`#`). Pros: * Can be more efficient than template literals, especially for large datasets * Provides fine-grained control over the string creation process Cons: * Less readable and maintainable code * Requires manual handling of null or undefined values in the array **Library Used:** None (built-in JavaScript methods) **Special JS Feature/Syntax:** Template literals are used in both benchmark definitions. Template literals allow for a more concise way to create strings, especially when working with complex expressions or formatting. **Benchmark Preparation Code:** The preparation code is minimal and only sets up the test loop and variables (`let test;`, `for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { ... }`). **Other Alternatives:** There are other alternatives to these two approaches, such as: * Using `+` operator for string concatenation * Utilizing libraries like Handlebars or Mustache for templating * Leveraging JavaScript's built-in string methods (e.g., `slice()`, `substring()`) for string manipulation However, the String template and Join approaches are common and straightforward ways to achieve string concatenation in JavaScript, making them suitable for this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
Template strings vs. String.concat
Template strings vs. String.concat v2
Template strings vs. String.concat, v2
Array Join vs Template String
Array join vs string template v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?