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 Animations Between Media Queries]()
CSS animations are right up there with sliced bread. CSS animations are efficient because they can be hardware accelerated, they require no JavaScript overhead, and they are composed of very little CSS code. Quite often we add CSS transforms to elements via CSS during...
![Vibration API]()
Many of the new APIs provided to us by browser vendors are more targeted toward the mobile user than the desktop user. One of those simple APIs the Vibration API. The Vibration API allows developers to direct the device, using JavaScript, to vibrate in...
![Full Width Textareas]()
Working with textarea widths can be painful if you want the textarea to span 100% width. Why painful? Because if the textarea's containing element has padding, your "width:100%" textarea will likely stretch outside of the parent container -- a frustrating prospect to say the least. Luckily...
![Image Manipulation with PHP and the GD Library]()
Yeah, I'm a Photoshop wizard. I rock the selection tool. I crop like a farmer. I dominate the bucket tool. Hell, I even went as far as wielding the wizard wand selection tool once.
...OK I'm rubbish when it comes to Photoshop.
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