Benchmark: Ternary Conditional with Concatenation vs. Traditional Conditional with Concatenation

Script Preparation code:

var cacheName ='';
componentsCfg = {};
componentsCfg.v = 1;
componentsCfg.h = 'asdf';

Tests:

Ternary with Concat
cacheName = (componentsCfg.v && componentsCfg.h) ? 'ch-' + componentsCfg.v + '-' + componentsCfg.h : 'ch';
Traditional If/Else with Concat
if(componentsCfg.v && componentsCfg.h) { cacheName = 'ch-' + componentsCfg.v + '-' + componentsCfg.h; } else { cacheName = 'ch'; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ternary with Concat
Traditional If/Else with Concat

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 the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test case is comparing two approaches to generate a `cacheName` variable:

1. **Ternary Conditional with Concatenation**: `cacheName = (componentsCfg.v && componentsCfg.h) ? 'ch-' + componentsCfg.v + '-' + componentsCfg.h : 'ch';`
2. **Traditional Conditional with Concatenation**: `if(componentsCfg.v && componentsCfg.h) {\r\n\tcacheName = 'ch-' + componentsCfg.v + '-' + componentsCfg.h;\r\n} else {\r\n  \tcacheName = 'ch';\r\n}`

**What is being tested?**

The test is measuring the performance difference between these two approaches. Specifically, it's comparing:

* Ternary conditional operator (`?:`) vs. traditional if-else statement with concatenation.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Ternary Conditional with Concatenation**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code
		+ Faster execution (since it's a single operation)
	* Cons:
		+ May not be immediately clear to developers without prior experience with ternary operators
2. **Traditional Conditional with Concatenation**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to understand for developers without prior experience with ternary operators
		+ Can be more maintainable in some cases (e.g., when dealing with complex conditions)
	* Cons:
		+ Longer and more verbose code
		+ Slower execution due to the if-else statement

**Other considerations:**

* The test is not comparing the performance of each approach on its own, but rather against a baseline. This means that any observed performance differences are likely due to the specific use case (i.e., generating `cacheName`).
* The test does not account for potential optimizations or variations in browser behavior.

**Library and syntax**

There is no library being used in this benchmark, only built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The ternary conditional operator (`?:`) is a special syntax introduced in ECMAScript 1999 (ES-3). It's a concise way to express simple conditional statements. However, its usage and performance vary across browsers and versions.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

* Using a library like `lodash` or `underscore`, which provide more expressive and efficient ways to handle conditional logic.
* Implementing a custom parser or optimizer for the specific use case.
* Investigating other optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization.

Keep in mind that optimizations should always be done with careful consideration of code readability, maintainability, and performance trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

Ternary Conditional with Concatenation vs. Traditional Conditional with Concatenation (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Ternary with Concat vs Traditional If/Else with Concat

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Ternary with Concat

Traditional If/Else with Concat

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):