Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
isNullish variants 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
nullish coalescing vs classic vs classic with ==
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));
classic with ==
const isNullish = value => value == null; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
nullish coalescing
classic
classic with ==
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is testing three variants of checking for nullish values (i.e., values that can be null or undefined) in an array `arr`. The nullish variants are: 1. "nullish coalescing" 2. "classic" 3. "classic with ==" **Nullish Coalescing** The first variant, "nullish coalescing," uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) and the fact that a null or undefined value will result in a falsy value. The test case is: ```javascript const isNullish = (value) => (value ?? true) === true ? true : false; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i)); ``` This approach takes advantage of the fact that a null or undefined value will be coerced to `false` in a boolean context. The `(value ?? true)` part checks if the value is nullish, and if so, returns `true`. If not, it returns `false`. Pros: This approach is concise and leverages the optional chaining operator. Cons: The performance might be affected by the overhead of the optional chaining operator. **Classic** The second variant, "classic," uses a simple check for null or undefined values: ```javascript const isNullish = value => value === null || value === undefined; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i)); ``` This approach directly checks if the value is `null` or `undefined`, and returns `true` if so. Pros: This approach is straightforward and easy to understand. Cons: This approach might be slower due to the direct comparison. **Classic with ==** The third variant, "classic with ==," uses a similar approach as the classic variant but adds an extra step by using the `==` operator: ```javascript const isNullish = value => value == null; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i)); ``` This approach also checks if the value is `null`, but uses the `==` operator to do so. Pros: This approach might be slightly faster than the classic variant due to the optimized implementation of the `==` operator. Cons: This approach adds unnecessary overhead due to the `==` operator. **Library and Special JS Features** None of the test cases use a specific library or special JavaScript features other than the optional chaining operator (`?.`). **Other Considerations** When comparing these variants, it's essential to consider the following factors: * Performance: How quickly does each variant execute? * Readability: Which variant is more readable and easier to understand? * Maintenance: How easy is it to maintain or modify each variant? In this case, the nullish coalescing approach might be a good compromise between performance and readability. **Alternatives** If you're looking for alternatives to these variants, consider the following: 1. **Using `typeof`**: Instead of checking if a value is `null` or `undefined`, you can use the `typeof` operator to check its type. ```javascript const isNullish = value => typeof value !== 'object'; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i)); ``` 2. **Using a custom function**: You can create a custom function that checks if a value is nullish and returns a boolean result. ```javascript const isNullish = (value) => value === null || value === undefined; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i)); ``` However, the provided variants are already quite concise and efficient, so it might not be necessary to explore alternative approaches.
Related benchmarks:
empty an array in JavaScript?(Yorkie)1
Reading array length inside vs outside for loop
1htrghdr
Clone Array - 08/02/2024
empty an array in JavaScript and then reassign
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?