Benchmark: ~~ vs math.floor test

Script Preparation code:

var x = Math.random() * 100000000;

Tests:

bit
var y = ~~x;
js api
var y = Math.floor(x)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bit
js api

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 explanation into smaller parts for better understanding.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. A benchmark is a test designed to measure the performance of an application or a specific piece of code. In this case, we're analyzing a simple benchmark that compares the execution time of two different approaches: the bitwise NOT operator (~) and the `Math.floor()` function.

**Benchmark Definitions**

The benchmark definition json contains two test cases:

1. `"Benchmark Definition": "var y = ~~x;"` (Test Name: "bit")
2. `"Benchmark Definition": "var y = Math.floor(x);"` (Test Name: "js api")

These two tests measure the execution time of the bitwise NOT operator (~) and the `Math.floor()` function, respectively.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Bitwise NOT Operator (~)**: This operator performs a binary negation operation on its operand. In this case, it's used to truncate the decimal part of a floating-point number.
2. **Math.floor() Function**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to its input.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each option:

1. **Bitwise NOT Operator (~)**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, simple, and efficient.
	* Cons: May not work as expected for negative numbers or non-integer inputs.
2. **Math.floor() Function**:
	* Pros: Robust, reliable, and works with a wide range of input types.
	* Cons: More memory-intensive and computationally expensive due to the function call overhead.

**Library Usage**

The `Math` object is used in both test cases. The `Math` library provides various mathematical functions and constants that can be used in JavaScript applications. In this case, it's used for the `floor()` function.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these benchmark definitions. They only use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to compare might include:

1. **Bitwise AND operator (&)**: This operator can be used to truncate the decimal part of a floating-point number, but it may not work as expected for negative numbers or non-integer inputs.
2. **Integer division (/)**: This operator can also be used to truncate the decimal part of a floating-point number, but it may produce different results due to integer division rules.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provided in the benchmark definition is:
```javascript
var x = Math.random() * 100000000;
```
This code generates a random floating-point number `x` with a large range of values.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case has its own unique characteristics. For example:

1. `"Benchmark Definition": "var y = ~~x;"` (Test Name: "bit")
	* This test uses the bitwise NOT operator (~) to truncate the decimal part of `x`.
2. `"Benchmark Definition": "var y = Math.floor(x);"` (Test Name: "js api")
	* This test uses the built-in `Math.floor()` function to truncate the decimal part of `x`.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.2.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bit	9969416.0 Ops/sec
js api	4989514.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

~~ vs math.floor test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bit vs js api

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bit

js api

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):