Benchmark: Equals vs Strictly Equals

Script Preparation code:

var a = b = "hello"

Tests:

Equals
a == b
Strictly Equals
a === b

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Equals
Strictly Equals

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 and explore what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the test case. In this case, there are two test cases: "Equals" and "Strictly Equals". Both tests use the same script preparation code:

```javascript
var a = b = "hello";
```

This creates two variables, `a` and `b`, which share the same value `"hello"`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Equality operator (`==`)**: This checks if `a` is equal to `b`. In JavaScript, this operator performs a loose equality check, which means it will consider the following cases as true:
	* String equality (e.g., `"hello" == "hello"`).
	* Object equality (e.g., `[1, 2] == [1, 2]`).
	* Number equality (e.g., `5.0 == 5`).
2. **Strictly equal operator (`===`)**: This checks if `a` is strictly equal to `b`. In JavaScript, this operator performs a strict equality check, which means it will consider only the following cases as true:
	* Strict string equality (e.g., `"hello" === "hello"`).
	* Primitive value equality (e.g., `5 == 5`).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

### Equality Operator (`==`)

Pros:

* More lenient, allowing for different data types.
* Easier to read and write.

Cons:

* May lead to unexpected behavior due to loose equality checks.
* Can cause issues with type coercion (e.g., converting a string to a number).

### Strictly Equal Operator (`===`)

Pros:

* Provides a clear and strict definition of equality.
* Reduces the risk of unexpected behavior due to loose equality checks.

Cons:

* Less lenient, allowing for fewer data types.
* May be more verbose in certain situations.

**Library Considerations**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you were to use a library like `lodash` or `underscore`, you might see functions like `_.eq()` or `_.isEqual()`. These functions would provide similar functionality to the equality operator (`==`) and strictly equal operator (`===`), but with additional features and options.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The script preparation code and test cases use standard JavaScript syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider using other equality operators, such as:

* `===` with the `strict` option (e.g., `a === b`).
* Using the `Number()` function to compare numbers (e.g., `Number(a) == Number(b)`).
* Using the `String()` function to compare strings (e.g., `String(a) == String(b)`).

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would have its own pros and cons, as discussed earlier.

In conclusion, this benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript's equality operators (`==` and `===`) under different conditions. By comparing these options, developers can gain a better understanding of when to use each operator and how it affects their code's behavior.

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/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Equals	4064485.2 Ops/sec
Strictly Equals	4273507.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Equals vs Strictly Equals (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Equals vs Strictly Equals

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Equals

Strictly Equals

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):