Benchmark: My 1st test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

Tests:

Boolean(arr.length)
if (Boolean(arr.length)) { console.log(1); } else { console.log(0); }
array length > 0
if (arr.length > 0) { console.log(1); } else { console.log(0); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Boolean(arr.length)
array length > 0

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Boolean(arr.length)	256021.6 Ops/sec
array length > 0	260742.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript code is crucial for understanding how different approaches affect execution speed, memory usage, and overall system efficiency.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition with two test cases:

1. "Boolean(arr.length)"
2. "array length > 0"

These tests measure the time taken by the JavaScript interpreter to evaluate the expressions inside the if statements.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared in these benchmarks:

1. Using `Boolean(arr.length)` vs using a simple comparison `arr.length > 0`
2. Not using any library or built-in function (the script preparation code only initializes an empty array) vs using a library or built-in function to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Using `Boolean(arr.length)` vs `arr.length > 0`

* **Boolean**:
	+ Pros: More readable, as it explicitly states that we're checking if the length is truthy.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of calling a function, even if the return value doesn't change the outcome.
* **arr.length > 0**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster and more efficient, as it's a simple comparison without the overhead of a function call.
	+ Cons: Less readable, especially for developers unfamiliar with this syntax.

### Not using any library or built-in function vs Using a library or built-in function

* **No library/built-in function**:
	+ Pros: None; this approach doesn't provide any benefits over a simple comparison.
	+ Cons: Slower and less efficient due to the need for manual implementation.
* **Using a library or built-in function**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster, as modern JavaScript engines often have optimized implementations of common functions.
	+ Cons: Requires importing an external library (e.g., `Math.abs`), which might not always be available.

In this case, the script preparation code only initializes an empty array (`var arr = [];`), so no library or built-in function is used. The test cases compare the performance of two approaches:

1. Using `Boolean(arr.length)` vs using a simple comparison `arr.length > 0`.
2. Not using any optimization (i.e., just a direct comparison) vs using an optimization, which isn't applied in this case.

**Test User Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Alternative Approaches**

For measuring performance differences between these two approaches:

1. Consider adding more test cases with varying array sizes to account for potential bottlenecks.
2. Introduce noise by using a random array size or a different data structure (e.g., object vs. array).
3. Experiment with different browsers, devices, and platforms to ensure the results are representative of real-world scenarios.

By analyzing these factors, you can gather more insights into how different approaches affect performance in JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

My 1st test (version: 0)

My 1st test

Comparing performance of: Boolean(arr.length) vs array length > 0

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Boolean(arr.length)

array length > 0

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):