Benchmark: Boolean vs !!2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];

Tests:

Test1
!!newArr.length
Test2
newArr.length > 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test1
Test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, the pros and cons of different approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. The `Script Preparation Code` section is executed before running the actual benchmark. In this case, it creates an array `newArr` with four elements: `'1'`, `'2'`, `'3'`, and `'4'`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two different options for evaluating the length of the `newArr` array:

1. `!!newArr.length`
2. `newArr.length > 0`

Let's discuss each option:

* **Option 1: `!!newArr.length`**
	+ This approach uses a double-notation (`!!`) to force the boolean conversion of `newArr.length`. The `!!` operator is an older way of writing `Boolean()` or `true`/`false` checks. It works by first converting the value to a number (using `newArr.length`) and then casting it to a boolean using `!!`.
	+ Pros: This approach can be slightly faster because it avoids the overhead of a conditional statement.
	+ Cons: The use of `!!` is less readable and more prone to errors compared to other methods. Modern JavaScript encourages the use of template literals, arrow functions, or explicit conditionals for simplicity and maintainability.
* **Option 2: `newArr.length > 0`**
	+ This approach uses a simple comparison operator (`>`) to check if the length of `newArr` is greater than zero.
	+ Pros: This approach is more readable and intuitive. It's also more idiomatic JavaScript, as it uses explicit conditionals instead of forced boolean conversions.
	+ Cons: This approach might be slightly slower due to the overhead of the conditional statement.

**Library and Purpose**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in this benchmark definition. However, some modern browsers like Chrome use `BigInt` (Binary Integer) for arbitrary-precision arithmetic, which can affect performance when dealing with large numbers or non-standard number representations. In this case, since `newArr.length` is a small integer, it's likely that the results will be comparable.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in this benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Other Considerations**

* **Cacheing**: MeasureThat.net might cache the benchmark results to reduce the number of runs and provide faster feedback. This could impact the accuracy of the results.
* **Browser Variability**: Different browsers may have varying performance characteristics, which can affect the benchmark results. MeasureThat.net uses multiple browser versions (e.g., Chrome 102) to try to mitigate this.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for evaluating `newArr.length` include:

* Using a more modern and expressive syntax: `if (newArr.length > 0)` or `Boolean(newArr.length)`
* Using an arrow function with template literals: `(newArr.length >= 1) ? true : false`
* Avoiding the forced boolean conversion altogether by using a simpler comparison: `newArr.length > 0 && newArr.length === 0`

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not affect performance as much as the original options, but they can make the code more readable and maintainable.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test1	8661951.0 Ops/sec
Test2	6391058.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Boolean vs !!2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Test1 vs Test2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test1

Test2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):