Benchmark: ! x !!! - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];

Tests:

Single
!newArr.length
Triple
!!!newArr.length

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Single
Triple

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.

Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a simple expression that checks the length of an array `newArr`. The expression has two variations:

1. `"! newArr.length"` (Single): This uses a single exclamation mark (`!`) to negate the value.
2. `"!!! newArr.length"` (Triple): This uses three exclamation marks (`!!!`) to triple-escape the value, making it non-string and therefore not susceptible to string length reduction.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared are:

* Using a single exclamation mark (`!`) to negate the value.
* Using multiple exclamation marks (`!!!`) to triple-escape the value.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Single Exclamation Mark (`!`)**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to read, and widely supported in most JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: Can be subject to string length reduction in some browsers (more on this later).
2. **Triple Exclamation Marks (`!!!`)**:
	* Pros: Avoids string length reduction issues in some browsers.
	* Cons: More verbose and less readable than the single exclamation mark approach.

**String Length Reduction**

In JavaScript, when a value is used as a non-string (e.g., an object or array), its `toString()` method returns a string representation of the value. If that string can be reduced to a shorter form (e.g., by removing trailing whitespace or concatenating strings), it's considered "string-able." In this benchmark, using multiple exclamation marks (`!!!`) makes the value non-string and avoids string length reduction.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, if you were to write a similar benchmark with external libraries, common examples include:

* Lodash (e.g., `_.length(newArr)`): A utility library providing functional programming helpers.
* Underscore.js (e.g., `_newArr.length`): A minimalist library offering functional programming utilities.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond the triple-escaping trick to avoid string length reduction. If you were to write a similar benchmark using more advanced features, examples might include:

* Async/await syntax
* Promises (e.g., `Promise.resolve(newArr).then(() => newArr.length)`)
* Modern JavaScript array methods (e.g., `newArr.filter().length`)

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark with alternative approaches, some options could include:

1. Using `Number()` or `parseInt()` to explicitly convert the value to a number.
2. Utilizing bitwise operations (e.g., `!newArr.length & 0xFFFFFFFF`) to achieve negation without string conversion.
3. Leveraging `Object.is()` or other comparison functions to compare values directly.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, syntax complexities, or browser compatibility considerations.

In summary, this benchmark primarily focuses on comparing two approaches to negate the length of an array: using a single exclamation mark (`!`) versus triple-escaping with three exclamation marks (`!!!`). The main consideration is avoiding string length reduction in some browsers.

Related benchmarks:

! x !!! (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Single vs Triple

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Single

Triple

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):