Benchmark: Boolean conversion - javascript

Tests:

!! (number)
var a = !!12;
Boolean() (number)
var a = Boolean(12);
ternary (number)
var a = (12 ? true : false);
!! (string)
var a = !!'string';
Boolean() (string)
var a = Boolean('string');
ternary (string)
var a = ('string' ? true : false);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
!! (number)
Boolean() (number)
ternary (number)
!! (string)
Boolean() (string)
ternary (string)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is focused on JavaScript boolean conversion, specifically comparing different methods to convert numbers and strings to booleans.

**Options Compared**

Three options are compared:

1. `!! (number)` (Double Notation)
2. `Boolean() (number)` (Built-in Boolean Function)
3. `ternary (number)` (Conditional Operator)

These options aim to achieve the same result: converting a number or string to a boolean value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`!! (number)`**: This approach uses the double notation operator (`!!`) to force-convert the input to a boolean value. It's concise but may have performance implications due to the overhead of the `!!` operation.
2. **`Boolean() (number)`**: This approach uses the built-in `Boolean()` function, which converts its argument to a boolean value. This method is more explicit and might be preferred for readability and maintainability.
3. **`ternary (number)`**: This approach uses the conditional operator (`? :`) to convert the input to a boolean value based on a condition. While it's concise, it may not be immediately clear what's happening, making it less readable than other approaches.

**Library Consideration**

None of the benchmark tests explicitly use any JavaScript libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the benchmark tests utilize special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basics of JavaScript programming.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these methods could include:

* Using a switch statement with a boolean condition
* Utilizing bitwise operations (e.g., `&` or `|`) to extract the sign bit from an integer
* Leveraging a library or function that provides a more efficient or optimized boolean conversion method

The double notation operator (`!!`) is often used for its brevity and simplicity, while the built-in `Boolean()` function offers explicitness and readability. The conditional operator (`ternary`) can be useful when concise code is preferred.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* `!! (number)` yields higher execution rates than `Boolean() (number)`.
* `!! (string)` outperforms both `Boolean() (number)` and `Boolean() (string)`.
* The `ternary` approach performs similarly to `Boolean()` for numbers, but is slower than `!! (number)`.

These results suggest that the double notation operator (`!!`) is the fastest way to convert numbers to booleans, followed closely by the conditional operator (`ternary`).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 26 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
!! (number)	106700400.0 Ops/sec
Boolean() (number)	9652053.0 Ops/sec
ternary (number)	115526056.0 Ops/sec
!! (string)	111984648.0 Ops/sec
Boolean() (string)	9413202.0 Ops/sec
ternary (string)	110853144.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Boolean conversion - javascript (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: !! (number) vs Boolean() (number) vs ternary (number) vs !! (string) vs Boolean() (string) vs ternary (string)

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

!! (number)

Boolean() (number)

ternary (number)

!! (string)

Boolean() (string)

ternary (string)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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