Benchmark: Boolean vs !!4 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Test1
!!newArr.length
Test2
newArr.length !== 0
test3
Boolean(newArr.length)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2
test3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 24 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	156746016.0 Ops/sec
Test2	155002320.0 Ops/sec
test3	142621248.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "Boolean vs !!4". This benchmark is testing different approaches to compare the length of an array. The array `newArr` is created with four elements and its length is being compared using three different methods:

1. **!!newArr.length**: This approach uses the double-notation operator (`!!`) to convert the boolean value of `newArr.length` to a number. This is done by treating the boolean value as an integer (0 or 1) and then negating it.
2. **newArr.length !== 0**: This approach directly compares the length of the array using the strict inequality operator (`!==`). If the length is not zero, the condition is true.
3. **Boolean(newArr.length)**: This approach uses the `Boolean()` function to convert the boolean value of `newArr.length` to a boolean value (true or false).

**Options Compared**

The three approaches are being compared in terms of their performance:

* **!!newArr.length**: This approach is likely to perform faster since it's a simple numerical comparison.
* **newArr.length !== 0**: This approach can be slower since it involves comparing the length with zero, which may involve additional operations.
* **Boolean(newArr.length)**: This approach might be slower due to the overhead of calling the `Boolean()` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **!!newArr.length**:
	* Pros: Fast, simple numerical comparison.
	* Cons: May not work as expected if `newArr` is null or undefined.
2. **newArr.length !== 0**:
	* Pros: Clear and concise code, handles null or undefined cases.
	* Cons: Might be slower due to additional operations.
3. **Boolean(newArr.length)**:
	* Pros: Robust and explicit code, works with any boolean value.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the `Boolean()` function.

**Other Considerations**

When writing code that involves comparing array lengths, it's essential to consider the following:

* Null or undefined values should be handled explicitly to avoid unexpected behavior.
* The use of double-notation operators like `!!` can lead to unexpected results if not used carefully.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no special JavaScript libraries are being tested. However, the use of the double-notation operator (`!!`) is a feature of JavaScript that allows for implicit type coercion.

If you're new to JavaScript or haven't worked with it extensively, understanding the nuances of operators like `!!` and the `Boolean()` function can be crucial in writing efficient and effective code.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives or variations on this benchmark, here are a few ideas:

* Compare different string comparison methods, such as `===`, `!==`, or regular expressions.
* Test different array manipulation operations, like sorting, filtering, or reducing.
* Explore the performance of different data structures, like arrays, objects, or sets.

These alternatives can help you gain a deeper understanding of JavaScript's capabilities and limitations, making you a more versatile and effective developer.

Related benchmarks:

Boolean vs !!4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2 vs test3

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

test3

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):