The String object is immutable. Every time you use one of the methods in the System.String class, you create a new string object in memory, which requires a new allocation of space for that new object. In situations where you need to perform repeated modifications to a string, the overhead associated with creating a new String object can be costly. The System.Text.StringBuilder class can be used when you want to modify a string without creating a new object. For example, using the StringBuilder class can boost performance when concatenating many strings together in a loop.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/standard/base-types/stringbuilder

i like it

the one and only solution

Thank you.
Such a graceful solution!

Where do you want to place ++i ?

You're just out here providing high quality information for free brother 💞

"working on string" is slow if done incorrectly. Concatenation in a loop is an antipattern leading to performance issues, because it copies and recreates new string on every itetration.

Having said that, it should not be treated as any kind of guideline, because JS runtimes can (and do) perform some magic behind the scenes to improve performance. It can happen that concatenation in a loop will be optimized and transformed into some stringbuilder-ish equivalent.

Follow up reading: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51185/are-javascript-strings-immutable-do-i-need-a-string-builder-in-javascript

Are Array operations faster than working on strings? I used string interpolation and a for loop to get the output. I tested my code and this code for table upto 10^6 numbers and this code was more performant by around 20-25% (using Performance interface).

'++i' would be the apex of elegance =D

Would have never thought of this..

Certainly clever, but I question the merit of using the index argument of array functions in cases where its value is not exactly the one required (and the one required must therefore be repeatedly derived). To me it seems like a needless addition of complexity that can be eliminated by simply settling for a traditional FOR-loop, permitting us to define precise initialization and termination points.

Granted, this example is so trivial, it hardly makes a difference either way.

i'm a fan

Just beutiful <3

otra alternativa válida es el uso del distinct