Benchmark: if vs && (condition) (false version)

Script Preparation code:

function someFunction () { return; }

Tests:

condition via `if` statement
if (0) { someFunction(); }
condition via `&&` statement
0 && someFunction();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
condition via `if` statement
condition via `&&` statement

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

The test case provided is designed to compare two different approaches for evaluating a condition in JavaScript: the traditional `if` statement and the chained `&&` operator.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests which approach is faster for two specific scenarios:

1. Evaluating a false condition using an `if` statement.
2. Evaluating a false condition using a chained `&&` operator (i.e., `0 && someFunction()`).

In both cases, the test code uses a dummy function called `someFunction()`, which is not actually executed.

**Options compared**

Two approaches are being compared:

1. **Traditional `if` statement**: The syntax `if (condition) { /* code */ }`
2. **Chained `&&` operator**: The syntax `0 && someFunction()`

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Traditional `if` statement:**

Pros:

* More readable and understandable code
* Can be easier to maintain and debug

Cons:

* Typically slower due to the overhead of evaluating the condition (e.g., evaluating a variable, accessing an object property)
* Requires a separate evaluation step before executing the code inside the if block

**Chained `&&` operator:**

Pros:

* Can be faster since the condition is evaluated in one step
* Reduces overhead compared to traditional if statements

Cons:

* Less readable and may lead to confusion for some developers (e.g., it's not immediately clear that the second operand is being short-circuited)
* May require more careful handling of edge cases, such as when the first operand is false but the second operand is still executed.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also considers the following:

* The `someFunction()` call is not actually executed in either scenario. This is done to isolate the evaluation of the condition and focus on the comparison between the two approaches.
* The test uses a dummy function, which means that any optimizations or special treatment for certain functions might not apply here.

**Special JavaScript features**

There are no special JavaScript features mentioned in this benchmark. It only deals with basic syntax differences.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to evaluating conditions, you might consider:

* Using a more modern language construct like `??` (optional chaining) or `?:` (conditional operator)
* Utilizing native functions like `Boolean()` or `Number()`
* Examining other optimizations techniques, such as inlining or dead code elimination

However, for this specific benchmark, the traditional `if` statement and chained `&&` operator are the primary focus.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
condition via `if` statement	7594059.0 Ops/sec
condition via `&&` statement	7572997.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

if vs && (condition) (false version) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: condition via `if` statement vs condition via `&&` statement

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

condition via `if` statement

condition via `&&` statement

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):