Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
type cast vs string concat
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
type cast vs string concat
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
type cast
console.log((Number("10") * -1).toString())
string concat
console.log(`-10`)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
type cast
string concat
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):
I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **What is being tested?** The benchmark compares two different approaches: using `Number()` followed by unary negation (`* -1`) to convert a string to an integer, versus using template literals (string concatenation with backticks) to achieve the same result. **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **Option 1**: Using `Number()` and unary negation (`* -1`). This approach involves: * Converting the string "10" to an integer using `Number()`. * Applying a unary negation operation by multiplying the result with `-1`. * Casting the result back to a string using `toString()`. 2. **Option 2**: Using template literals (string concatenation with backticks). This approach involves: * Directly creating a new string by concatenating `-10` inside template literals. **Pros and Cons:** Both approaches have their pros and cons: **Option 1 (Number() and unary negation)** Pros: * Generally faster, as it avoids the overhead of parsing strings. * Can be more efficient when dealing with large datasets or performance-critical code. Cons: * Requires explicit conversion to an integer and back to a string, which can lead to unnecessary allocations and copies. * May not work correctly for very large integers or negative numbers. **Option 2 (Template literals)** Pros: * More readable and concise, as it eliminates the need for explicit conversions. * Less likely to introduce errors due to incorrect usage of `Number()`. Cons: * Can be slower than Option 1, especially when dealing with large datasets or performance-critical code. * May incur additional overhead from JavaScript's template literal parsing and string concatenation. **Library and purpose:** None explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, if you're interested in understanding how libraries like `number` or `parseInt()` work, I can provide more information on those topics. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches using standard JavaScript constructs. **Other alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options: * Using a `BigInt` constructor to represent large integers. * Employing a different data type, such as `NumberFloat64`, if available. * Leveraging the `Big.js` library for arbitrary-precision arithmetic. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be supported or optimized by all JavaScript engines and browsers.
Related benchmarks:
Javascript 'concat()' vs '+' for strings
Array.prototype.concat vs Spread operator
Array.prototype.concat vs Spread operator
Template strings vs. String.concat v2
Javascript 'concat()' vs '+'
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?