Shaving Bytes with JavaScript Booleans
Developers are always search for ultimate way to create something with the least amount of code. This, of course, is one of the reasons we use minifiers: to serve code as small as possible. Of course this practice has numerous benefits, like faster download time, less storage consumption, etc. One way that minifiers are able to shave bytes off of JavaScript code is changing the way booleans are used.
true === !0 // Save 2 chars
false === !1 // Save 3 chars
A few bytes of every true and false go away with the ! evaluation. If you set one-letter variables names to those values, you may end up saving more. Keep in mind I'm not telling you to do this in your source code -- minifiers like Uglify JS will do this for you. Just something neat to know about though!
![CSS Filters]()
CSS filter support recently landed within WebKit nightlies. CSS filters provide a method for modifying the rendering of a basic DOM element, image, or video. CSS filters allow for blurring, warping, and modifying the color intensity of elements. Let's have...
![JavaScript Promise API]()
While synchronous code is easier to follow and debug, async is generally better for performance and flexibility. Why "hold up the show" when you can trigger numerous requests at once and then handle them when each is ready? Promises are becoming a big part of the JavaScript world...
![Event Delegation with MooTools]()
Events play a huge role in JavaScript. I can't name one website I've created in the past two years that hasn't used JavaScript event handling on some level. Ask yourself: how often do I inject elements into the DOM and not add an...
![Table Cell and Position Absolute]()
If you follow me on Twitter, you saw me rage about trying to make position: absolute work within a TD element or display: table-cell element. Chrome? Check. Internet Explorer? Check. Firefox? Ugh, FML. I tinkered in the console...and cussed. I did some researched...and I...
Cool :-)
Glad you aren’t advocating coding like this directly. Can’t beat true/false for readability.
Coercions like
NumbertoBooleandoesn’t affect performance?Maybe too simple of a test: http://jsperf.com/bool-num-test
Looks like using
!0and!1may be faster (in Chrome 35) but only marginally.Even if that’s true, and it’s not due to some statistical error, the gain is so small it’s not really worth it.
Those are noops anyway. I would be surprised if the JS engine just optimise them away at compile time.
didn’t just*
Still prefer true/false for readability. As you said, it is better to let the Minifier to do this for us. It is better to keep the true/false in our code.
I expect the gain to be lost as soon as the file gets gzipped. I am wrong?
You should also remember the bitwise operations like
!~number, that returns true only for -1