Benchmark: boolean vs math - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Boolean !!!!
newArr.length && 1
Math
newArr.length > 0 && 1
Boolean
Boolean(newArr.length) && 1

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Boolean !!!!
Math
Boolean

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Benchmark Definition` section provides the code that will be executed to measure performance. In this case, there are three different approaches:

1. `newArr.length && 1`: This is a simple conditional statement that checks if the length of the array `newArr` is truthy and then evaluates the expression `1`. The `&&` operator has a short-circuit behavior, meaning it will stop evaluating as soon as it encounters a falsy value.
2. `newArr.length > 0 && 1`: This is another conditional statement that checks if the length of the array `newArr` is greater than 0 and then evaluates the expression `1`. Again, the `&&` operator has a short-circuit behavior.
3. `Boolean(newArr.length) && 1`: This uses the `Boolean()` function to explicitly convert the result of `newArr.length` to a boolean value (true or false). The rest is the same as before.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. `newArr.length && 1`:
	* Pros: Simple, concise code.
	* Cons: May rely on the short-circuit behavior of the `&&` operator, which can be unpredictable if used in other contexts.
2. `newArr.length > 0 && 1`:
	* Pros: Still simple and concise, but avoids relying on the short-circuit behavior.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient since it needs to evaluate the condition before evaluating the expression.
3. `Boolean(newArr.length) && 1`:
	* Pros: Explicitly converts the result to a boolean value, making it more predictable.
	* Cons: More verbose than the other two approaches.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark, but there is an example of using the `Boolean()` function, which is a built-in JavaScript function that returns true for any non-empty value. The `&&` operator is also a built-in operator in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to these three tests could be:

* Using a loop to iterate over the array instead of checking its length.
* Using a different data structure, such as an object or a map, to store and retrieve values.
* Adding more complexity to the benchmark by introducing additional variables or conditional statements.

For example, an alternative test case might look like this:
```json
{
    "Benchmark Definition": "for (var i = 0; i < newArr.length; i++) {}"
}
```
This would use a loop instead of checking the length of the array.

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/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Boolean !!!!	19956564.0 Ops/sec
Math	19823796.0 Ops/sec
Boolean	6950047.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

boolean vs math (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Boolean !!!! vs Math vs Boolean

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Boolean !!!!

Math

Boolean

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):