Benchmark: string concat (+) vs template literals (``) (10 vars)

Script Preparation code:

var strOut = '';
var strIn01 = 'test01';
var strIn02 = 'test02';
var strIn03 = 'test03';
var strIn04 = 'test04';
var strIn05 = 'test05';
var strIn06 = 'test06';
var strIn07 = 'test07';
var strIn08 = 'test08';
var strIn09 = 'test09';
var strIn10 = 'test10';

Tests:

concat (+)
strOut = strIn01 + ' ' + strIn02 + ' ' + strIn03 + ' ' + strIn04 + ' ' + strIn05 + ' ' + strIn06 + ' ' + strIn07 + ' ' + strIn08 + ' ' + strIn09 + ' ' + strIn10;
template literals (``)
strOut = `${strIn01} ${strIn02} ${strIn03} ${strIn04} ${strIn05} ${strIn06} ${strIn07} ${strIn08} ${strIn09} ${strIn10}`;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
concat (+)
template literals (``)

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches for string concatenation: using the `+` operator and template literals (`''`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **String Concatenation with `+` Operator**: This approach uses the `+` operator to concatenate multiple strings together.
2. **Template Literals (`''`)**: This approach uses template literals, introduced in ECMAScript 2015, to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**String Concatenation with `+` Operator:**

Pros:

* Widely supported across different browsers and JavaScript engines
* Easy to read and understand

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues due to the creation of temporary strings and string slicing
* May not be suitable for large numbers of concatenations, as it can result in a lot of overhead

**Template Literals (`''`):**

Pros:

* More efficient than using the `+` operator, as it avoids creating temporary strings
* Allows for easier readability and maintainability, especially when working with complex string templates

Cons:

* May not be supported across all browsers or JavaScript engines (although most modern ones support it)
* Can be less intuitive to read and understand for developers who are not familiar with template literals

**Library and Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses the `template literals` feature, which is a part of ECMAScript 2015. This means that the benchmark requires a JavaScript engine that supports this feature, such as V8 (used in Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (used in Firefox).

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark assumes that the input strings are fixed and known beforehand.
* It does not account for edge cases such as null or undefined string inputs.

**Alternatives**

If you want to run similar benchmarks, you can try:

1. **String Concatenation with `join()` Method**: This approach uses the `join()` method to concatenate an array of strings.
2. **String Interpolation with `replace()` Method**: This approach uses the `replace()` method to insert values into a template string.

Here's some sample code for these alternatives:

```javascript
// String Concatenation with `join()` Method
var strOut = ['test01', 'test02', 'test03'].join(' ');

// String Interpolation with `replace()` Method
var strOut = 'test01' + ' test02 ' + 'test03';
```

Keep in mind that the performance results may vary depending on the specific JavaScript engine and environment used.

Related benchmarks:

string concat (+) vs template literals (``) (10 vars) (version: 0)

string concat vs template literals (10 vars)

Comparing performance of: concat (+) vs template literals (``)

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

concat (+)

template literals (``)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):