Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Boolean vs !! vs length
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Test1 vs Test2 vs Test3
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var newArr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];
Tests:
Test1
!!newArr.length
Test2
Boolean(newArr.length)
Test3
newArr.length > 0
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Test1
Test2
Test3
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/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=571725" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test1
120.8M/s
Test3
112.2M/s
Test2
80.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Test1
120,758,184 Ops/sec
Test3
112,243,696 Ops/sec
Test2
80,472,104 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different ways to check if an array has elements: using the double negation operator (`!!`), the `Boolean()` function, and comparing the length of the array with 0 (`newArr.length > 0`). The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest. **Options being compared** There are three options being compared: 1. `!!newArr.length` 2. `Boolean(newArr.length)` 3. `newArr.length > 0` Each option has its pros and cons: * **`!!newArr.length`**: This method uses a single operator to check if the array length is falsy (i.e., 0). It's concise and readable, but may incur additional overhead due to the double negation operation. * **`Boolean(newArr.length)`**: This method creates a new `Boolean` object with the result of evaluating the array length as a boolean value. While it provides explicitness, it involves more operations and may be slower than the first option. * **`newArr.length > 0`**: This method directly compares the array length to 0 using a greater-than operator. It's straightforward but may require additional computations due to potential type coercion. **Library** The benchmark uses no external libraries beyond what's built into JavaScript (e.g., `Boolean()`). However, some browsers may provide additional features or optimizations that could affect the results, such as just-in-time compilation or caching of common expressions. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark. The tests only use standard JavaScript operators and constructs. **Other alternatives** To explore alternative approaches, one might consider: * Using a library like `lodash` which provides a more concise version of the second option: `_.gt(newArr.length, 0)` * Employing a more specialized data structure or algorithm for array manipulation * Experimenting with different browsers or JavaScript engines to see if their optimizations affect performance Keep in mind that the choice of approach often depends on specific use cases and requirements. The benchmark provided by MeasureThat.net is designed to help developers identify potential performance bottlenecks in everyday code. In terms of optimizing this particular code, it's likely that the most significant improvements can be made by reducing unnecessary operations or leveraging browser-specific features that optimize common expressions (e.g., caching `newArr.length` before using it).
Related benchmarks
Boolean vs !!
Boolean vs !!3
Boolean vs !!4
Boolean vs !! vs Cast type
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?