Benchmark: 2-if vs && (condition)

Script Preparation code:

var stuff = 'stuff';
function someFunction () { return 5; }

Tests:

condition via `if` statement
if (stuff) { someFunction(); }
condition via `&&` statement
stuff && someFunction();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
condition via `if` statement
condition via `&&` statement

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
condition via `if` statement	8460172.0 Ops/sec
condition via `&&` statement	8242083.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different ways of evaluating conditional statements (if and &&) in JavaScript, specifically with regards to their performance.

The benchmark is comparing the execution speed of:

1. `if` statement: `if (stuff) { someFunction(); }`
2. `&&` statement: `stuff && someFunction();`

**Options compared**

In this case, there are only two options being compared:

* `if` statement
* `&&` statement

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **`if` statement**:
	* Pros: Can be more readable and maintainable for simple conditions.
	* Cons: May lead to unnecessary checks if the condition is false, potentially slowing down the execution.
2. **`&&` statement**:
	* Pros: More concise and can reduce unnecessary checks since it short-circuits as soon as the first operand is falsy.
	* Cons: Can be less readable and maintainable for complex conditions.

It's worth noting that the `&&` statement also introduces additional overhead due to the evaluation of each operand, which may negate some of its benefits.

**Library usage**

There doesn't seem to be any specific library used in this benchmark. The variables `stuff` and `someFunction` are defined within the script preparation code.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It only uses standard JavaScript features.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark is testing performance, so it's likely that other factors like caching, memoization, or optimization by the browser/JavaScript engine are not considered here.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark for more complex conditions, you could consider adding additional options, such as:

* `?:` (ternary operator) instead of `if`
* `===` and `!==` operators
* Function calls with early returns

However, for simple conditional statements like this one, the comparison between `if` and `&&` should suffice.

If you're interested in exploring more complex conditions or other aspects of JavaScript performance, MeasureThat.net also offers benchmarks for other topics, such as string manipulation, loop optimizations, or event handling.

Related benchmarks:

2-if vs && (condition) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: condition via `if` statement vs condition via `&&` statement

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

condition via `if` statement

condition via `&&` statement

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):