Benchmark: Typeof vs raw accessor 4

Script Preparation code:

var data = { 
  get: function() { 
    if (Math.random() < 0.000000001) { 
      console.log(5); 
    } 
  } 
};
var fn = function() {  
  if (Math.random() < 0.000000001) { 
    console.log(5); 
  } 
}

Tests:

typeof function
var d1 = Math.random() > 0.5 ? data : fn; var d2 = d1 === data ? fn : data; typeof d1 === 'function' ? d1() : d1.get(); typeof d2 === 'function' ? d2() : d2.get();
typeof object
var d1 = Math.random() > 0.5 ? data : fn; var d2 = d1 === data ? fn : data; typeof d1 === 'object' ? d1.get() : d1(); typeof d2 === 'object' ? d2.get() : d2();
raw
var d1 = Math.random() > 0.5 ? data : fn; var d2 = d1 === data ? fn : data; data.get(); fn();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
typeof function
typeof object
raw

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.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is defined by two scripts: `data` and `fn`. The script `data` contains an object with a `get()` method that logs a value to the console only when a very rare condition (`Math.random() < 0.000000001`) is met. On the other hand, the script `fn` is a simple function that logs a value to the console under the same rare condition.

**Options being compared:**

There are three options being compared:

1. **typeof data**: This checks if `d1` (randomly assigned between `data` and `fn`) is an instance of the `Function` type.
2. **typeof fn**: This checks if `d2` (the other randomly assigned variant) is an instance of the `Function` type.
3. **raw**: This option simply calls the original functions without any checks.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **typeof data vs typeof fn**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can avoid unnecessary function calls by directly accessing the `get()` or `()` method on the object.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to incorrect results if the object's type is not correctly determined, potentially causing unexpected behavior.
2. **raw**:
	* Pros:
		+ Guarantees that the original functions are called without any checks.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to unnecessary function calls and may consume more resources.

**Library:**

None of the provided scripts use a library explicitly, but they do rely on built-in JavaScript functionality (e.g., `typeof`, `Math.random()`) and DOM APIs (not used in this specific benchmark).

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on the behavior of the `typeof` operator and how it interacts with objects that have a `get()` method.

**Alternative approaches:**

To improve performance or avoid potential issues, alternative approaches could be explored:

1. **Type checking**: Consider using type checking libraries like TypeScript to ensure accurate object types.
2. **Function caching**: Implement caching mechanisms to store the results of expensive function calls, reducing unnecessary reevaluation.
3. **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: Utilize JIT compilers like V8 (used by Chrome) to optimize function execution and reduce overhead.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity or require significant modifications to the benchmark setup.

Related benchmarks:

Typeof vs raw accessor 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: typeof function vs typeof object vs raw

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

typeof function

typeof object

raw

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):