Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
isNullish variants
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
nullish coalescing vs classic
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = []; var i = 0; while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;
Tests:
nullish coalescing
const isNullish = (value) => (value ?? true) === true ? true : false; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i));
classic
const isNullish = value => value === null || value === undefined; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
nullish coalescing
classic
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its various components. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The benchmark definition JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests different approaches to checking if a value is nullish (i.e., either null or undefined). The two test cases are: 1. **Nullish Coalescing**: This test case uses the nullish coalescing operator (`??`) to check if a value is nullish. The code defines an array `arr` and populates it with values from 0 to 100,000 using a while loop. 2. **Classic**: This test case uses a traditional if-else statement to check if a value is nullish. **Options Compared** The two test cases compare the performance of different approaches: * Nullish Coalescing Operator (`??`) * Traditional if-else statement **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Nullish Coalescing Operator (`??`)**: * Pros: Simple, concise, and expressive syntax. * Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support this operator. 2. **Traditional if-else statement**: * Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and environments. * Cons: More verbose and less readable than the nullish coalescing operator. **Library Used** The `arr` array is used to store values from 0 to 100,000, which suggests that this benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript arrays and iteration. **Special JS Feature/ Syntax** The nullish coalescing operator (`??`) is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It's not widely supported in older browsers or environments, so it may affect the results of this benchmark on those platforms. **Other Considerations** * The benchmark uses a while loop to populate the `arr` array, which can be an expensive operation. * The test cases only compare two approaches, but there may be other ways to check if a value is nullish that are not included in this benchmark. * This benchmark may not be representative of real-world use cases, as it focuses on a specific problem (checking for nullish values) rather than a broader set of tasks. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for checking if a value is nullish include: * Using the `typeof` operator with the `null` and `undefined` literals: `(value === 'null' || value === 'undefined')` * Using the `instanceof` operator with the `Null` and `Undefined` constructors: `(value instanceof Null || value instanceof Undefined)` * Using a more traditional approach, such as checking for the presence of a `valueOf()` method or using a separate function to check if a value is nullish. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics than the two test cases included in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
50000 number array(natvie forEach vs lodash forEach)
Array filter versus for loop
`Array.slice(0, N)` vs `Array.length = N` sd434332432
Clone Array - 08/02/2024
Array length assertion
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?