Benchmark: !! vs greater than

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Test1
!!newArr.length
Test2
newArr.length > 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	17145236.0 Ops/sec
Test2	16982096.0 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 the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net tests two different ways of checking if an array has at least one element: using the `!!` operator and the greater-than (`>`) operator.

The test cases compare the performance of these two approaches on a simple JavaScript code that creates an array `newArr` with four elements.

**Options being compared**

1. **`!!newArr.length`**: This approach uses the "double bang" operator (`!!`) to force a boolean conversion of the array length. In JavaScript, `null`, `undefined`, and `0` are falsy values, while all other numbers and arrays are truthy.
2. **`newArr.length > 0`**: This approach directly compares the array length with the number `0` using the greater-than operator.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`!!newArr.length`**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more readable for those who are familiar with the double bang operator.
		+ Can work around some edge cases, like null or undefined array lengths (although this is not recommended).
	* Cons:
		+ Requires knowledge of the double bang operator, which can make it harder to read and understand.
2. **`newArr.length > 0`**
	* Pros:
		+ More intuitive and straightforward for most developers.
		+ Works with all number values (including negative numbers) and arrays of any size.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more whitespace or parentheses in the code to avoid potential issues.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net may use some internal libraries for its testing framework, but these are not typically exposed in the benchmark results.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The tests only rely on standard JavaScript syntax and semantics.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to write a similar benchmark, other approaches could include:

* Using `Boolean()` function to convert the array length to a boolean value.
* Comparing the array length using the `<` operator (which would be less common).
* Using `Object.keys(newArr).length > 0` (which is another way to check if an object has at least one property).

However, these alternatives are not typically used in production code and may introduce additional complexity or performance overhead.

Related benchmarks:

!! vs greater than (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

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):