Benchmark: Setting boolean - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

var a = false;

Tests:

direct
a = true;
uglifyed
a = !0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direct
uglifyed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides metadata for the test case. In this case:

* "Name" is a human-readable name for the benchmark.
* "Description" is an optional field that can provide additional context for the benchmark. However, in this example, it's empty.
* "Script Preparation Code" and "Html Preparation Code" are both empty fields. This means that there is no setup code required before running the test.

**Individual Test Cases**

We have two test cases:

1. **Direct**
	* The script assignment is done directly: `a = true;`
2. **Uglified**
	* The script assignment is done using a technique called "uglify" which converts a JavaScript expression into its shortest possible equivalent. In this case, the expression `!0` is equivalent to `true`, so assigning it to `a` will set `a` to `true`.

Now, let's dive into what's being compared:

**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Direct Assignment**: Assigning a value directly to a variable (`a = true;`)
2. **Uglified Expression**: Using an uglified expression (`!0`) that is equivalent to `true`

**Pros and Cons**

* **Direct Assignment**
	+ Pros: Clear, straightforward code that's easy to read and understand.
	+ Cons: Might be slower due to the overhead of creating a variable.
* **Uglified Expression**
	+ Pros: Can be faster since it doesn't require creating a new variable.
	+ Cons: Less readable and maintainable code.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, `uglify` is being used, which implies that the test is using a JavaScript minifier or compressor.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's just a straightforward comparison of two assignment techniques.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more alternatives to this benchmark, some potential options could be:

* **Template Literals**: Using template literals (`a = ${true};`) which can provide faster execution times compared to direct assignments.
* **Object Destructuring**: Using object destructuring (`const { a } = { a: true };`) which can be more efficient than direct assignments.
* **Array Methods**: Using array methods (e.g., `const a = [true][0];`) which can provide different performance characteristics compared to direct assignments.

These alternatives would require additional test cases and modifications to the benchmark definition.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 54 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
direct	17528454.0 Ops/sec
uglifyed	17356968.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Setting boolean (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direct vs uglifyed

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

direct

uglifyed

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):