var a=true;
if(a===true) console.log("true");
else console.log("false");
var a=false;
if(a!==true) console.log("true");
else console.log("false");
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
=== | |
!== |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
=== | 54384.8 Ops/sec |
!== | 53202.4 Ops/sec |
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features or syntax, and other considerations.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark measures the performance difference between two conditional statements: if (a === true)
and if (a !== true)
. These are commonly used in JavaScript for equality checks.
Options Compared
Two options are being compared:
if (a === true)
if (a !== true)
These options differ in the way they check for truthiness:
===
(strict equality) checks if both values are equal, including type and value.!==
(non-strict inequality) checks if the two values are not equal.Pros and Cons
if (a === true)
:"true"
).if (a !== true)
:Library Usage
There is no library used in this benchmark, as it only involves built-in JavaScript functions and operators.
Special JavaScript Features or Syntax
None mentioned. The benchmark focuses on basic conditional statement performance.
Other Considerations
ExecutionsPerSecond
), which indicates how many times each option is executed per second.DevicePlatform
and OperatingSystem
fields suggest that the benchmark was run on a desktop Windows system with Chrome 74.RawUAString
field provides information about the User Agent string returned by the browser, but this information is not directly related to the benchmark's outcome.Alternatives
Other alternatives for conditional statements in JavaScript include:
let
or const
instead of var
(which can lead to variable hoisting issues).Boolean(a)
to convert values to booleans.Keep in mind that the choice of alternative depends on specific use cases and performance requirements.