Benchmark: boolean to string2

Tests:

ternary
true ? true : false
toString
String(true)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ternary
toString

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 break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**
The Benchmark Definition JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It contains basic information about the benchmark, such as its name, description, and preparation codes (script and HTML).

In this case, the benchmark definition is empty (`"Description": null`), which means that no detailed description is provided for the benchmark.

**Script Preparation Code**
The Script Preparation Code is also empty (`"Script Preparation Code": null`), which implies that there are no specific setup or teardown steps required before running the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**
Similarly, the Html Preparation Code is empty (`"Html Preparation Code": null`), suggesting that no HTML-specific preparation is necessary for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**
The test cases represent two separate benchmarks:

1. **Ternary**: The first test case has a benchmark definition of `"true ? true : false"`, which uses the ternary operator to evaluate an expression.
	* Pros: Simple and concise syntax, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios, as the ternary operator can sometimes be simplified or rephrased in more efficient ways.
2. **toString**: The second test case has a benchmark definition of `"String(true)"`, which converts a boolean value to a string using the `String()` function.
	* Pros: This test case ensures that the `toString()` method is called with a non-zero argument, simulating real-world usage where strings need to be converted from other types.
	* Cons: The use of `String(true)` might not accurately represent how `toString()` would be used in most cases.

**Library and Special Features**
No libraries or special features are mentioned in the benchmark definition. If a library were required, it would likely depend on the specific problem being solved or the desired behavior for this particular test case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to rewrite these tests, here are alternative approaches:

1. **Ternary**:
	* `let result = (true) ? true : false;`
	* This uses a more modern arrow function syntax.
2. **toString**:
	* `let result = String(true);`
	* This is equivalent to the original test case, but uses the same basic structure.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches are not necessarily better or worse than the original code; they simply provide different ways of expressing the same idea.

In general, when writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider the following:

1. **Real-world usage**: Try to mimic real-world scenarios as closely as possible.
2. **Consistency**: Ensure that your benchmark definition accurately reflects the expected behavior or performance characteristics of the code being tested.
3. **Test variety**: Include multiple test cases to cover different aspects of the problem domain.

By taking these factors into account, you can create more informative and useful benchmarks like this one, which help developers and researchers understand how JavaScript performs in various scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months 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
ternary	2073374720.0 Ops/sec
toString	16477798.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

boolean to string2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ternary vs toString

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ternary

toString

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):