Benchmark: Boolean constructor vs double negotiation trick in javascript 2

Script Preparation code:

var bFalse = false;
var sEmpty = '';
var sFilled = 'Foo';
var nZero = 0;
var nOne = 1;

Tests:

Boolean
Boolean(bFalse) Boolean(sEmpty) Boolean(sFilled) Boolean(nZero) Boolean(nOne)
double neg with booleans
!Boolean(bFalse) !Boolean(sEmpty) !Boolean(sFilled) !Boolean(nZero) !Boolean(nOne)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Boolean
double neg with booleans

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 analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create `Boolean` values in JavaScript:

1. **Boolean constructor**: Creating a new `Boolean` object using the `new Boolean()` syntax.
2. **Double negation trick**: Using double negation (`!`) to create a boolean value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests both options on different types of variables:

* `bFalse`, `sEmpty`, `sFilled`, and `nZero`: strings, empty string, non-empty string, and number 0
* `nOne`: number 1

The two test cases are:

1. **Boolean**: Creating new `Boolean` objects using the constructor for each variable type.
2. **Double neg with booleans**: Using double negation to create boolean values for each variable type.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Boolean constructor**:
	+ Pros: Explicitly creates a new object, potentially more readable.
	+ Cons: May incur a performance overhead due to object creation.
* **Double negation trick**:
	+ Pros: Fast and lightweight, as it only applies the negation operator.
	+ Cons: May be less readable or confusing for some developers.

The double negation trick is particularly useful when working with primitive types, like booleans, integers, and floats. However, it can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., in cases where the variable might become `NaN`).

**Library and Features**

There are no libraries or special JavaScript features being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is likely designed to test performance differences between these two approaches. The results will give insight into which method is faster, more efficient, and potentially suitable for specific use cases.

Keep in mind that the results might be influenced by factors like:

* Browser support: Different browsers may have varying levels of support or optimizations for JavaScript features.
* Optimizations: Modern JavaScript engines often apply optimizations to reduce performance differences between these approaches.
* Platform: The benchmark is currently running on a Linux desktop environment, which might not represent other platforms (e.g., mobile, Windows).

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches or variations that could be explored in similar benchmarks include:

* Using the `!!` operator instead of double negation (`!`) for boolean values.
* Comparing different primitive type constructors (e.g., `Number()`, `String()`).
* Testing more complex scenarios, like using these methods within loops or conditional statements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.88 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Boolean	1461077.5 Ops/sec
double neg with booleans	1459823.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Boolean constructor vs double negotiation trick in javascript 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Boolean vs double neg with booleans

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Boolean

double neg with booleans

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):