Benchmark: if !== or === - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

===
var a=true; if(a===true) console.log("true"); else console.log("false");
!==
var a=true; if(a!==true) console.log("false"); else console.log("true");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
===
!==

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**What is being tested?**

The test cases are measuring the performance of JavaScript `if` statements with equality (`===`) and inequality (`!==`) operators.

**Options being compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Equality operator (`===`)**: This checks if two values are equal using the strict equality operator (`===`). If the values are not equal, it returns false.
2. **Inequality operator (`!==`)**: This checks if two values are not equal using the strict inequality operator (`!=` or `!==`, but since `===` is used for equality, `!==` is often considered as its inverse).

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Equality operator (`===`)**:
	* Pros: More intuitive for simple comparisons, easier to read.
	* Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior if types are different (e.g., comparing a string with an integer). This is because JavaScript performs type coercion when using `==` or `===`.
2. **Inequality operator (`!==`)**:
	* Pros: More specific and accurate for "not equal" comparisons, avoids type coercion issues.
	* Cons: Less intuitive than `===` and may be more verbose.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that if a custom function or helper was used to implement the `if` statement logic, it might involve libraries or built-in JavaScript functions (e.g., `typeof`, `NaN`, etc.).

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JS feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, using `===` and `!==` operators assumes that the test user has a good understanding of JavaScript's strict equality operators.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark focuses on performance, which might not be the only consideration when writing code. Other factors like readability, maintainability, or error handling should also be taken into account.
* In real-world scenarios, you might encounter cases where `==` is used instead of `===`. It's essential to understand the implications of using these operators and consider alternative approaches (e.g., using strict equality).

**Alternative alternatives:**

If you need to compare values in JavaScript, other alternatives could include:

1. Using the `===` operator consistently for both equality and inequality comparisons.
2. Employing a library or custom function that abstracts away the difference between `==` and `===`.
3. Utilizing alternative comparison operators, such as the `===`-like behavior of `===` in non-strict modes (e.g., using `===` instead of `===`) or other libraries offering more nuanced comparisons.
4. Using a different programming language or paradigm that provides more robust and expressive comparison operators.

In summary, the benchmark measures performance differences between JavaScript's equality (`===`) and inequality (`!==`) operators. Understanding the pros and cons of each approach can help developers make informed decisions about which operator to use in their code.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
===	51868.1 Ops/sec
!==	51858.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

if !== or === (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: === vs !==

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

===

!==

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):