Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
boolean conversion
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
Implicit conversion vs Explicit conversion
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function foo() { }
Tests:
Implicit conversion
if (foo) { }
Explicit conversion
if (typeof foo === 'function') { }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Implicit conversion
Explicit conversion
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=589182" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Implicit conversion
213.3M/s
Explicit conversion
211.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Implicit conversion
213,313,456 Ops/sec
Explicit conversion
211,511,808 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is provided in JSON format, which includes: * `Name`: The name of the benchmark, "boolean conversion". * `Description`: An empty description, suggesting that this is a basic test. * `Script Preparation Code`: ```javascript function foo() { // code to be tested } ``` This script definition is used as the input for the implicit and explicit boolean conversion tests. **Individual Test Cases** The benchmark consists of two test cases: 1. **Implicit Conversion**: ```javascript if (foo) { // code to be executed if foo is truthy } ``` In this test, the JavaScript interpreter implicitly converts the `foo` function call to a boolean value using the "truthiness" rule. This means that the expression will evaluate to true if the function returns any value other than `undefined`, `null`, 0, or the empty string (`""`). If the function returns one of these values, the expression will be false. Pros: * Simple and efficient * Fast execution Cons: * May lead to unexpected behavior in certain cases (e.g., when comparing functions with different return types) 2. **Explicit Conversion**: ```javascript if (typeof foo === 'function') { // code to be executed if foo is a function } ``` In this test, the JavaScript interpreter explicitly checks the type of `foo` using the `typeof` operator. This ensures that only functions are evaluated as truthy. Pros: * More predictable and robust behavior * Avoids potential pitfalls with implicit conversion Cons: * May be slower due to the explicit type check **Library Usage** There is no explicit mention of a library in the provided code snippets. However, it's worth noting that many JavaScript engines use libraries or frameworks to implement the language features. For example, the `typeof` operator might rely on the V8 engine's built-in type checking capabilities. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark does not explicitly test any special JavaScript feature or syntax. The tests focus on the implicit and explicit boolean conversion rules. **Alternatives** Other approaches to evaluating booleans in JavaScript include: * **Using a conditional operator**: Instead of `if` statements, you could use a conditional operator (`?:`) to evaluate the expression directly: `foo() ? true : false`. * **Implementing a custom boolean function**: You could write a custom function that implements the implicit and explicit conversion rules, allowing for more control over the evaluation process. * **Using a testing framework with built-in assertion mechanisms**: Some testing frameworks, like Jest or Mocha, provide built-in assertions for testing boolean values.
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?