Benchmark: 2 ternaries vs let mutation v2

Script Preparation code:


var onClicks = [() => {},() => {},() => {},() => {},() => {},undefined]

function ternaryRender(){
onClicks.forEach((onClick)=>{
const Tag = onClick ? 'button' : 'div';
const defaultProps = onClick ? { type: 'button', title: 'awdawd', onClick } : {};
})

}

function letRender(){
onClicks.forEach((onClick)=>{
let defaultProps = {
		type: 'button',
		title: 'awdawdawd',
		onClick
};
  
let Tag = 'button'

	if (!onClick) {
		Tag = 'div';
		defaultProps = {};
	}
})

}

Tests:

ternary
ternaryRender()
let
letRender()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ternary
let

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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes two JavaScript functions, `ternaryRender` and `letRender`, which are used to generate HTML elements based on conditional logic.

1. **`ternaryRender` function**: This function uses ternary operators (`?`) to conditionally set the `Tag` variable to either `'button'` or `'div'`. The `defaultProps` object is also conditionally populated based on the value of `onClick`.
2. **`letRender` function**: This function uses a different approach, where it first defines an empty `defaultProps` object and then conditionsally updates it and sets the `Tag` variable to either `'button'` or `'div'`.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. Ternary operator usage (`ternaryRender`)
2. Let statement usage (`letRender`)

These options are compared in terms of performance, which is measured by the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Ternary Operator Usage (ternaryRender)**
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable code
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to less readable code for complex conditional statements
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of evaluating the ternary operator
2. **Let Statement Usage (letRender)**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more explicit variable declarations and updates
		+ Can be faster due to fewer function calls and evaluations
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code than the ternary approach
		+ May lead to more complex conditional logic

**Library**

There is no explicitly mentioned library in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that both functions use `forEach` loop, which is a built-in JavaScript method.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the `let` statement was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a way to declare variables without hoisting.

**Other Alternatives**

To optimize performance, developers can consider alternative approaches, such as:

1. Using inline functions or closures to reduce function call overhead.
2. Using a more efficient data structure, like an array of objects, instead of separate `defaultProps` and `Tag` variables.
3. Applying optimizations specific to the browser being tested (e.g., using Firefox-specific features).

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not necessarily lead to better performance, as the benchmarking results ultimately depend on the test cases, hardware, and software configurations.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance of two JavaScript approaches: ternary operator usage and let statement usage. While there are pros and cons to each approach, the actual performance difference may vary depending on specific use cases and environments.

Related benchmarks:

2 ternaries vs let mutation v2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: ternary vs let

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

ternary

let

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):