Benchmark: Double tilde vs Math.floor 10.8

Tests:

~~
~~10.82345
Math.floor
Math.floor(10.82345)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
~~
Math.floor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:104.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/104.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 104 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
~~	731487360.0 Ops/sec
Math.floor	751407744.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to evaluate a number that may or may not be an integer:

1. `~~` (double tilde operator)
2. `Math.floor()` function

The input value is 10.82345, which is a decimal number.

**Options compared**

We have two options being compared:

a. `~~` (double tilde operator): This is an older JavaScript operator that attempts to coerce its operand to an integer by applying the unary bitwise NOT operator (`~`) twice. In modern browsers, this operator is not supported and throws a `SyntaxError`.

b. `Math.floor()` function: This is a standard JavaScript method for rounding a number down to the nearest integer.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

a. `~~`:
	* Pros: Simple and concise way to evaluate numbers.
	* Cons: Not supported in modern browsers, throws a syntax error if used directly, and may not produce accurate results due to floating-point precision issues.

b. `Math.floor()` function:
	* Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and platforms, accurate results, and well-documented.
	* Cons: May be slower than the `~~` operator for simple cases due to the overhead of a function call.

**Library usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The `Math.floor()` function is part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned, but it's worth noting that modern browsers support features like arrow functions (`=>`), classes (`class`), and async/await syntax (`async/await`), which may affect performance in certain cases. However, these features are not used in this benchmark.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to measure integer approximation could include:

1. `Math.trunc()`: Similar to `Math.floor()`, but returns the largest possible integer value when the decimal part is zero.
2. `Number.isInteger()`: A more recent addition to JavaScript, which checks if a number can be interpreted as an integer without precision loss.
3. `BigInt` operations: If you need to work with arbitrary-precision integers, using `BigInt` arithmetic might be a good alternative.

For comparing performance, you could also consider benchmarking other methods like:

1. Using bitwise operators (`<<`, `>>`) to extract the integer part of the number.
2. Implementing your own integer approximation algorithm.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of readability, maintainability, and performance compared to the original `Math.floor()` function.

Related benchmarks:

Double tilde vs Math.floor 10.8 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ~~ vs Math.floor

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

~~

Math.floor

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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