Benchmark: >0 vs !! - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];

Tests:

Test1
!!newArr.length
Test2
Boolean(newArr.length)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different ways to check if an array has a non-zero length: using the `!!` operator (also known as the "double bang" operator) and the `Boolean()` function. The benchmark also compares these two approaches with each other, as well as a baseline approach that simply checks the length of the array.

**What are the options being compared?**

The three options being compared are:

1. `!!newArr.length`: This uses the `!!` operator to check if the length of the array is non-zero. The `!!` operator converts its argument to a boolean value, where `true` becomes `1` and `false` becomes `0`. In this case, `!!` is used to negate the result of `newArr.length`, so that an empty array (i.e., one with length 0) evaluates to `false`.
2. `Boolean(newArr.length)`: This uses the `Boolean()` function to check if the length of the array is non-zero. The `Boolean()` function returns `true` for any non-empty value and `false` for an empty value.
3. Baseline: A simple check of `newArr.length`, without any operator or function calls.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. `!!newArr.length`:
	* Pros: This approach is likely to be faster than the other two options, since it's a simple arithmetic operation with no function calls.
	* Cons: This approach may not work as expected for negative array lengths (e.g., `-1`). Additionally, using the `!!` operator can make the code harder to read and understand.
2. `Boolean(newArr.length)`: This approach is more explicit about its intent, since it uses a function call to check if the length is non-zero.
	* Pros: This approach is likely to be more readable and maintainable than the first option, especially for developers who are not familiar with the `!!` operator.
	* Cons: This approach may be slower than the first option due to the additional function call.
3. Baseline:
	* Pros: This approach is simple and easy to understand, since it only checks the length of the array without any operations or functions.
	* Cons: This approach may not be as efficient as the other two options, especially for large arrays.

**Library used**

None

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

The `!!` operator (double bang operator) is a special feature in JavaScript that converts its argument to a boolean value. It's often used to negate the result of an expression, but it can also be confusing and hard to read if not used carefully.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The benchmark preparation code creates an array `newArr` with four elements:
```javascript
var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];
```
This code is executed once before each test case, which means that the array will be in the same state for both tests.

**Individual test cases**

The benchmark defines two individual test cases:

1. `!!newArr.length`:
```javascript
"!!newArr.length"
```
This test case checks if the length of the array is non-zero using the `!!` operator.
2. `Boolean(newArr.length)`: 
```javascript
"Boolean(newArr.length)"
```
This test case checks if the length of the array is non-zero using the `Boolean()` function.

**Latest benchmark result**

The latest benchmark result shows that:

* The first test case (`!!newArr.length`) has an execution rate of 15320945.0 executions per second.
* The second test case (`Boolean(newArr.length)`) has an execution rate of 5308478.0 executions per second.

Note that these results are likely to vary depending on the specific hardware and software configuration being tested.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 11_0_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.141 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Mac OS X 11.0.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	15320945.0 Ops/sec
Test2	5308478.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

>0 vs !! (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):