Benchmark: Clamp01 with various implementations

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

/*your preparation JavaScript code goes here
To execute async code during the script preparation, wrap it as function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction, example:*/
async function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction() {
    // This function is optional, feel free to remove it.
    // await someThing();
}

Tests:

Using if
const clamp01 = (x) => { if (x <= 0) return 0; if (x >= 1) return 1; return x; } clamp01(0.5); clamp01(1e-30); clamp01(-1); clamp01(1.5); clamp01(0); clamp01(1); clamp01(Infinity); clamp01(-Infinity); clamp01(NaN);
Using ternary
const clamp01 = (x) => { return (x < 0) ? 0 : ((x > 1) ? 1 : x); } clamp01(0.5); clamp01(1e-30); clamp01(-1); clamp01(1.5); clamp01(0); clamp01(1); clamp01(Infinity); clamp01(-Infinity); clamp01(NaN);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using if
Using ternary

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using if	92304448.0 Ops/sec
Using ternary	68817968.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark titled "Clamp01 with various implementations" tests two different implementations of the `clamp01` function, which clamps a given value between 0 and 1. The function is expected to return 0 for any input less than or equal to 0, 1 for any input greater than or equal to 1, and the input value itself if it lies within the range (0, 1).

### Implementations Compared

1. **Using if statements**:
   ```javascript
   const clamp01 = (x) => {
       if (x <= 0) return 0;
       if (x >= 1) return 1;
       return x;
   }
   ```
   - **Pros**: 
     - Readability: The use of explicit `if` statements is straightforward and easily understandable, especially for developers who may not be familiar with the ternary operator.
     - Ease of debugging: It's easier to add logs or breakpoints within `if` blocks than nested ternary operators.
   
   - **Cons**:
     - Slightly more verbose, which could result in marginally less efficient execution compared to more succinct approaches, though the difference is usually negligible with modern JavaScript engines.

2. **Using ternary operator**:
   ```javascript
   const clamp01 = (x) => {
       return (x < 0) 
           ? 0 
           : ((x > 1) 
               ? 1 
               : x);
   }
   ```
   - **Pros**:
     - Conciseness: The ternary operator allows for a more compact implementation, which could potentially result in faster execution as there are fewer statements to evaluate.
     - Functional programming style: Some developers prefer this style because it can lead to more functional code patterns.
   
   - **Cons**:
     - Readability: Nested ternary operators can become hard to read, particularly for those not accustomed to this syntax, leading to confusion or misinterpretation.
     - Debugging: It can be harder to follow the execution flow compared to `if` statements, making debugging potentially more tedious.

### Benchmark Results

The benchmark results indicate the number of executions per second for each implementation on the same browser and platform, providing insights into their relative performance:

- **Using if**: 92,304,448 executions per second
- **Using ternary**: 68,817,968 executions per second

### Considerations

1. **Performance**: From the benchmark results, the `if` implementation is significantly faster than the ternary implementation. This is an important consideration for performance-critical applications, especially if such a function is invoked frequently.

2. **Maintainability**: While performance is crucial, the maintainability of code should also be a priority. Future developers may prefer more readable code over compact but obscure expressions.

3. **Environmental Factors**: The benchmark is executed in a specific environment (Chrome 134 on Windows). Performance may vary across different browsers or platforms, so tests should ideally be conducted in contexts representative of expected deployment scenarios.

### Alternatives

Several alternative methods could achieve similar functionality:

- **Using Math functions**: A common alternative is to utilize `Math.max` and `Math.min`:
   ```javascript
   const clamp01 = (x) => Math.min(Math.max(x, 0), 1);
   ```
   - This method exploits built-in Math functions and may offer enhanced performance in certain engines due to optimizations.

- **Libraries**: Utilizing libraries such as lodash could also provide additional utilities:
   ```javascript
   const _ = require('lodash');
   const clamp01 = (x) => _.clamp(x, 0, 1);
   ```
   - Pros: Libraries often provide enhancements or offer multiple additional features.
   - Cons: Adding a library for a simple task increases the application's footprint and may introduce unnecessary dependencies.

In conclusion, the benchmark offers valuable insights into the performance trade-offs between different coding styles. The choice between readability versus performance, or whether to leverage built-in functions or powerful libraries, should align with the specific requirements and context of the development project.

Related benchmarks:

Clamp01 with various implementations (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Using if vs Using ternary

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Using if

Using ternary

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):