Benchmark: !! vs greater than variations2

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Test1
!!newArr
Test2
newArr.length > 0
Test3
!!newArr.length
Test4
newArr.length != 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2
Test3
Test4

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	17337580.0 Ops/sec
Test2	17410664.0 Ops/sec
Test3	17244036.0 Ops/sec
Test4	17056288.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks to compare the performance of different approaches in various scenarios. The provided benchmark definition JSON and individual test cases are analyzed to explain what is being tested, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition JSON Analysis**

The provided benchmark definition JSON contains:

* **Name**: "!! vs greater than variations2"
* **Description**: null (no description provided)
* **Script Preparation Code**: `var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];` (preparing an array of numbers for testing)
* **Html Preparation Code**: null (no HTML preparation code is required)

**Individual Test Cases Analysis**

The individual test cases are defined in the following format:

```json
[
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "!!newArr",
        "Test Name": "Test1"
    },
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "newArr.length > 0",
        "Test Name": "Test2"
    },
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "!!newArr.length",
        "Test Name": "Test3"
    },
    {
        "Benchmark Definition": "newArr.length != 0",
        "Test Name": "Test4"
    }
]
```

These test cases compare different approaches to check if the `newArr` array is non-empty:

* **Test1**: Using the double-bang (`!!`) operator to coerce a falsy value to a boolean.
* **Test2**: Directly comparing the length of the array with 0 using the greater-than (>)) operator.
* **Test3**: Using the double-bang (`!!`) operator again, similar to Test1.
* **Test4**: Using the strict inequality (!=) operator to check if the length is not equal to 0.

**Options Compared**

The test cases compare four different approaches:

1. Double-bang (`!!`):
	* Pros: Can be useful when working with falsy values or null checks, but can lead to performance issues in some cases.
	* Cons: Additional overhead due to the double-bang operation.
2. Greater-than (`>`):
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported, but may not work as expected for very large numbers or NaN (Not a Number) values.
	* Cons: May require explicit conversion if working with falsy values.
3. Double-bang again (`!!`):
	* Pros: Similar to Test1, but might be less readable due to the repetition of the double-bang operator.
	* Cons: Same overhead as in Test1.
4. Strict inequality (!=):
	* Pros: Less performance overhead compared to using greater-than, and works well with falsy values.
	* Cons: May not work as expected for NaN (Not a Number) values.

**Library Used**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The double-bang operator (`!!`) is used in some modern JavaScript engines to coerce a value to a boolean. This feature is not widely supported across all browsers and may lead to performance issues in some cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare the length of an array, consider using:

* `newArr.length === 0` for strict equality
* `arr.some(isNaN)` or `arr.every(isNaN)` for more complex conditions (not used in this benchmark)
* `arr.includes(0)` or `arr.indexOf(0) > -1` for specific use cases

Related benchmarks:

!! vs greater than variations2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2 vs Test3 vs Test4

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

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):