Benchmark: if !== or === v2

Tests:

===
var a=true; if(a===true) console.log("true"); else console.log("false");
!==
var a=false; if(a!==true) console.log("true"); else console.log("false");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
===
!==

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 options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two conditional statements: `if (a === true)` and `if (a !== true)`. These are commonly used in JavaScript for equality checks.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. `if (a === true)`
2. `if (a !== true)`

These options differ in the way they check for truthiness:

* `===` (strict equality) checks if both values are equal, including type and value.
* `!==` (non-strict inequality) checks if the two values are not equal.

**Pros and Cons**

1. `if (a === true)`:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient in some cases, as it avoids unnecessary checks on undefined or null values.
	* Cons: May not work correctly for non-numeric values that have a truthy value (e.g., `"true"`).
2. `if (a !== true)`:
	* Pros: Handles non-numeric values with a truthy value and provides a more explicit way of checking for inequality.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the additional check.

**Library Usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark, as it only involves built-in JavaScript functions and operators.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

None mentioned. The benchmark focuses on basic conditional statement performance.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures the execution rate of each option (`ExecutionsPerSecond`), which indicates how many times each option is executed per second.
* The `DevicePlatform` and `OperatingSystem` fields suggest that the benchmark was run on a desktop Windows system with Chrome 74.
* The `RawUAString` field provides information about the User Agent string returned by the browser, but this information is not directly related to the benchmark's outcome.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for conditional statements in JavaScript include:

* Using `let` or `const` instead of `var` (which can lead to variable hoisting issues).
* Employing more modern approaches, such as using `Boolean(a)` to convert values to booleans.
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which provide more functional programming options for handling conditional statements.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative depends on specific use cases and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.169 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
===	54384.8 Ops/sec
!==	53202.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

if !== or === v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: === vs !==

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

===

!==

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):