Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Double tilde vs Math.floor 10.8
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
~~ vs Math.floor
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
~~
~~10.82345
Math.floor
Math.floor(10.82345)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
~~
Math.floor
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its results. **What is being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to evaluate a number that may or may not be an integer: 1. `~~` (double tilde operator) 2. `Math.floor()` function The input value is 10.82345, which is a decimal number. **Options compared** We have two options being compared: a. `~~` (double tilde operator): This is an older JavaScript operator that attempts to coerce its operand to an integer by applying the unary bitwise NOT operator (`~`) twice. In modern browsers, this operator is not supported and throws a `SyntaxError`. b. `Math.floor()` function: This is a standard JavaScript method for rounding a number down to the nearest integer. **Pros and Cons of each approach** a. `~~`: * Pros: Simple and concise way to evaluate numbers. * Cons: Not supported in modern browsers, throws a syntax error if used directly, and may not produce accurate results due to floating-point precision issues. b. `Math.floor()` function: * Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and platforms, accurate results, and well-documented. * Cons: May be slower than the `~~` operator for simple cases due to the overhead of a function call. **Library usage** There is no library used in this benchmark. The `Math.floor()` function is part of the JavaScript standard library. **Special JS feature or syntax** None are explicitly mentioned, but it's worth noting that modern browsers support features like arrow functions (`=>`), classes (`class`), and async/await syntax (`async/await`), which may affect performance in certain cases. However, these features are not used in this benchmark. **Alternative approaches** Other alternatives to measure integer approximation could include: 1. `Math.trunc()`: Similar to `Math.floor()`, but returns the largest possible integer value when the decimal part is zero. 2. `Number.isInteger()`: A more recent addition to JavaScript, which checks if a number can be interpreted as an integer without precision loss. 3. `BigInt` operations: If you need to work with arbitrary-precision integers, using `BigInt` arithmetic might be a good alternative. For comparing performance, you could also consider benchmarking other methods like: 1. Using bitwise operators (`<<`, `>>`) to extract the integer part of the number. 2. Implementing your own integer approximation algorithm. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of readability, maintainability, and performance compared to the original `Math.floor()` function.
Related benchmarks:
Rounding methods
Power vs Square Root functions
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfaster test
Rounding to precision
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() feat. Math.pow
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?