Benchmark: Booean coercion vs Boolejan coercion

Script Preparation code:

var bFalse = false;
var sEmpty = '';
var sFilled = 'Foo';
var nZero = 0;
var nOne = 1;

var Boolejan = (input) => !!input

Tests:

Boolean
Boolean(bFalse) Boolean(sEmpty) Boolean(sFilled) Boolean(nZero) Boolean(nOne)
Boolejan
Boolejan(bFalse) Boolejan(sEmpty) Boolejan(sFilled) Boolejan(nZero) Boolejan(nOne)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Boolean
Boolejan

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to boolean coercion in JavaScript:

1. **Boolean coercion**: This is the built-in JavaScript operator `Boolean()` that converts a value to a boolean (`true` or `false`).
2. **Boolejan coercion**: This approach uses a custom function `Boolejan(input)` that returns `!!input`. The double exclamation mark (`!!`) is used to negate the input value.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Boolean Coercion (Built-in Operator)**

Pros:

* Efficient: Built-in operators are highly optimized by JavaScript engines.
* Consistent behavior: `Boolean()` behaves consistently across different browsers and environments.
* Easy to read: The code is straightforward, and the intent is clear.

Cons:

* Limited control: You have no control over the coercion process or how it's implemented under the hood.
* Potential for caching: If not used carefully, `Boolean()` might be cached, leading to slower performance in some cases.

**Boolejan Coercion (Custom Function)**

Pros:

* Fine-grained control: By using a custom function, you can implement your own boolean coercion logic.
* Avoiding potential caching issues: Since it's a custom implementation, there's less chance of being cached or optimized away by the JavaScript engine.

Cons:

* Less efficient: Implementing a custom coercion function might introduce additional overhead due to function call and execution.
* Potential inconsistencies: If not implemented carefully, Boolejan coercion could lead to inconsistent behavior across browsers.

**Other considerations**

* **Use of `!!`**: The use of double exclamation mark (`!!`) in Boolejan coercion is a clever trick. It works by first converting the input to a boolean using `Boolean(input)`, and then negating it with another double exclamation mark (`!!`). This approach allows for more control over the coercion process.

**Library usage**

None of the benchmark test cases explicitly use any libraries, but it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or browsers might have additional features or built-in optimizations that could affect the results.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no specific JS feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, the use of `!!` is a common pattern in JavaScript for implementing boolean coercion or negation.

Now, let's look at some alternatives to these approaches:

* **Using bitwise operations**: Instead of using the `!!` trick or the built-in `Boolean()` operator, you could implement boolean coercion using bitwise operations (e.g., `x & 1 == 0 ? true : false`). This approach would provide fine-grained control but might be less efficient.
* **Using a utility function**: If you need to perform boolean coercion frequently in your codebase, consider creating a reusable utility function that implements one of the above approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Booean coercion vs Boolejan coercion (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Boolean vs Boolejan

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Boolean

Boolejan

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):