Benchmark: Ternary vs Condition v2

Tests:

Condition
const primary = true; const variant = (primary && 'primary') || 'default';
Ternary
const primary = true; const variant = primary ? 'primary' : 'default';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Condition
Ternary

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark tests two approaches to handling conditional expressions in JavaScript: ternary operators and traditional conditionals (also known as "if-else" statements).

**Ternary Operators vs Conditionals**

A ternary operator is a shorthand way to express a simple if-else statement. It consists of three parts:

1. A condition (an expression that evaluates to true or false)
2. An action to take if the condition is true
3. An alternative action to take if the condition is false

The syntax for a ternary operator in JavaScript is:
```javascript
condition ? action_if_true : action_if_false;
```
For example, the first benchmark definition:
```javascript
const primary = true;
const variant = (primary && 'primary') || 'default';
```
Can be rewritten using a traditional conditional statement as follows:
```javascript
if (primary) {
  const variant = 'primary';
} else {
  const variant = 'default';
}
```
In both cases, the `variant` variable will be assigned either "primary" or "default", depending on the value of the `primary` variable.

**Comparison**

The main difference between these two approaches is readability and conciseness. Ternary operators are often considered more concise and easier to read when dealing with simple conditions, while traditional conditionals can be more readable for complex logic.

Here's a summary of the pros and cons:

* **Ternary Operators:**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise
		- Can improve code density
	+ Cons:
		- May be less readable for complex conditions or nested ternaries
		- Limited flexibility in handling multiple conditionals
* **Traditional Conditionals (if-else):**
	+ Pros:
		- More readable, especially for complex logic
		- Can handle multiple conditionals and nested logic
	+ Cons:
		- May be less concise than ternary operators
		- More lines of code can lead to longer execution times

**Library: None**

There are no libraries or frameworks involved in this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature: None**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's purely about comparing the performance of two approaches to handling simple conditionals.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to handling conditionals, here are a few options:

1. **Arrow Functions**: Instead of traditional function expressions, arrow functions can be used for concise conditional logic.
```javascript
const variant = primary => primary ? 'primary' : 'default';
```
2. **Object Property Access**: Object property access can also be used to condense conditionals.
```javascript
const variant = { primary: true } ? { value: 'primary' } : { value: 'default' };
```

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same performance benefits as traditional conditionals, but they can improve code readability and conciseness.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark on MeasureThat.net!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Condition	85661704.0 Ops/sec
Ternary	73802560.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Ternary vs Condition v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Condition vs Ternary

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Condition

Ternary

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):