Benchmark: Nested tenary vs dictionary

Script Preparation code:

var random = Math.floor(Math.random() * 20);

Tests:

Tenary
const status_ = random === 0 ? -Math.PI: random === 1 ? Math.EPSILON: random === 2 ? 1: random === 3 ? 1: random === 4 ? 1: random === 5 ? 1: random === 6 ? 1: random === 7 ? 1: random === 8 ? 1: random === 9 ? 1: random === 18 ? 5: random === 19 ? 28: random === 20 ? 0: -1;
Dictionary
const test = { 0: -Math.PI, 1: Math.EPSILON, 2: 1, 3: 1, 4: 1, 5: 1, 6: 1, 7: 1, 8: 1, 9: 1, 18: 5, 19: 28, 20: 0, }; status_ = test[random] || -1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Tenary
Dictionary

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test case by case.

**Benchmark Name:** Nested ternary vs dictionary

**Description:**

The test compares two approaches to handle a random value:

1. Using nested ternary operators (Tenary)
2. Using an object as a dictionary (Dictionary)

**Test Case 1: Tenary**

* The script uses a series of nested ternary operators to assign a specific value to the `status_` variable based on the random value generated.
* The syntax is:
```javascript
const status_ = 
    random === 0 ? -Math.PI:
    random === 1 ? Math.EPSILON:
    random === 2 ? 1:
    // ...
```
**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* Compact code, which can be a plus in certain scenarios.
* No need to declare an object with key-value pairs.

Cons:

* Readability suffers due to the nested ternary operators.
* Error-prone if not properly maintained (e.g., adding or removing cases).

**Test Case 2: Dictionary**

* The script uses an object `test` as a dictionary to assign values based on the random value generated.
* The syntax is:
```javascript
const test = {
    0: -Math.PI,
    1: Math.EPSILON,
    2: 1,
    // ...
};

status_ = test[random] || -1;
```
**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* Easy to read and maintain.
* Allows for easy addition or removal of cases.

Cons:

* Requires declaring an object with key-value pairs, which can be less compact than the ternary operator approach.

**Library/Feature Used:**

None

**Special JS Feature or Syntax Used:**

* Nested ternary operators (`?:`) are used in Test Case 1.
* The `||` operator is used to provide a default value (in this case, `-1`) if the random value does not match any key in the dictionary.

**Other Alternatives:**

In addition to these two approaches, another alternative could be using an array of values and indexing into it based on the random value:
```javascript
const values = [-Math.PI, Math.EPSILON, 1, /* ... */];
status_ = values[random] || -1;
```
This approach has similar pros and cons to the dictionary approach.

In conclusion, this benchmark test case demonstrates two approaches to handling a random value: using nested ternary operators or an object as a dictionary. While both have their advantages and disadvantages, the dictionary approach is generally more readable and maintainable.

Related benchmarks:

Nested tenary vs dictionary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Tenary vs Dictionary

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Tenary

Dictionary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):