Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Switch vs boolean inline
(version: 0)
d
Comparing performance of:
Switch vs boolean inlince
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var str = 'abc'; str = str.charAt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 3)); var found;
Tests:
Switch
switch (str) { case 'a': found = 'A'; break; case 'b': found = 'B'; break; case 'c': found = 'C'; break; }
boolean inlince
str === 'a' && (found = 'A'); str === 'b' && (found = 'B'); str === 'c' && (found = 'C');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Switch
boolean inlince
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 test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The `MeasureThat.net` website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares two approaches: using a `switch` statement versus using inline boolean checks (`&&`). **Test Cases** There are only two test cases: 1. **Switch**: This test case uses a traditional `switch` statement with three cases to determine which character is in the string `str`. The `found` variable is assigned a value based on the matched character. 2. **Boolean inline**: This test case uses inline boolean checks (`&&`) to achieve the same result as the `switch` statement. Instead of using a `switch` statement, it uses multiple `if` conditions chained together with logical operators. **Comparison** The main difference between these two approaches is the syntax and the number of operations required. Pros of **Switch**: * Easier to read and maintain, especially for larger codebases. * Can be more efficient in terms of compiler optimizations (e.g., constant folding). Cons of **Switch**: * May require more function calls (i.e., `break` statements), which can lead to additional overhead. * Not all modern JavaScript engines optimize `switch` statements as well as inline boolean checks. Pros of **Boolean inline**: * Can be more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of a `switch` statement and its associated function calls. * Can take advantage of compiler optimizations (e.g., constant folding). Cons of **Boolean inline**: * More difficult to read and maintain, especially for larger codebases. * May lead to additional logical complexity, making the code harder to understand. **Library** None. **Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. Both test cases use standard JavaScript constructs. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few alternatives: * Using `Object.keys()` and array iteration: This approach would involve iterating over an array of strings (e.g., `"a"`, `"b"`, `"c"`), comparing each string with the input `str` using equality checks (`===`). * Using regular expressions: This approach would involve creating a regular expression that matches one of the three possible characters and then testing it against the input string. Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the original **Switch** vs. **Boolean inline** benchmark. I hope this explanation helps!
Related benchmarks:
Nathan's Switch vs Object Literal Test
Switch vs Object Literal - SR Test
Switch vs Object Literal methods
Switch vs Object Literal v23023022323
Switch vs Object Literal extended
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?