Benchmark: ternary vs partial ternary function v2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

function partial(condition, trueCase, falseCase) {
  return condition ? trueCase(condition) : falseCase?.(condition)
}

Tests:

ternary
const t1 = Math.random() > 0.5 ? true : false;
function
const t2 = partial(Math.random() > 0.5, () => true)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ternary
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ternary	88931104.0 Ops/sec
function	86989640.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark titled "ternary vs partial ternary function v2" compares two approaches to evaluating a conditional expression in JavaScript: the traditional ternary operator and an implementation using a partial function.

### Options Compared

1. **Ternary Operator Approach**
   - **Test Case**: 
     ```javascript
     const t1 = Math.random() > 0.5 ? true : false;
     ```
   - **Description**: This is a straightforward use of the ternary operator, which checks if a random number (generated by `Math.random()`) is greater than 0.5. It returns `true` if the condition is met and `false` otherwise.
   - **Performance**: Generally, ternary operations are fast as they're a built-in part of JavaScript syntax and get optimized well by JavaScript engines.
  
2. **Partial Function Approach**
   - **Test Case**:
     ```javascript
     const t2 = partial(Math.random() > 0.5, () => true);
     ```
   - **Description**: This uses a custom function called `partial` that accepts a condition and two functions (`trueCase` and `falseCase`). It evaluates the condition and executes either `trueCase` or the optional `falseCase` based on the condition. The `falseCase` is called with the condition only if it was provided.
   - **Purpose of the Library/Function**: In this case, rather than using a conditional statement directly, it abstracts the logic into a function in order to potentially increase flexibility. The `partial` function allows for more complex cases where the actions may be determined by function callbacks rather than static values.

### Pros and Cons

- **Ternary Operator**
  - **Pros**:
    - Fast and concise.
    - Clear and simple syntax for basic conditions.
    - Directly supported and optimized by JavaScript engines.
  - **Cons**:
    - Less flexibility for more complex scenarios where multiple operations need to be performed.
    - Difficult to read if the logic becomes complex or nested.

- **Partial Function**
  - **Pros**:
    - Enhanced flexibility, allowing for dynamic behavior.
    - Cleaner approach for more complex conditional logic where callback functions may differ.
  - **Cons**:
    - Overhead of function invocation, introducing slight performance costs.
    - More verbose than the ternary operator for simple conditions, which could be seen as unnecessary complexity in simple cases.

### Other Considerations

Using functions like `partial` may improve code readability and maintainability in larger codebases or more complex logic scenarios. However, for simple conditions, the ternary operator generally remains the best choice due to its performance and simplicity.

### Alternatives

- **If-Else Statement**: In cases where more complex conditional evaluations are needed, a traditional `if-else` statement can be a viable alternative. It is more verbose than the ternary operator, but also better suited for situations where you need to execute more than one statement in either case.
  
- **Logical AND/OR Operators**: For simple true/false evaluations, logical operators can also be used as a terse alternative, although readability can suffer.

In conclusion, the choice between these approaches should depend on the specific use case, weighing performance, readability, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

ternary vs partial ternary function v2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: ternary vs function

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ternary

function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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