Benchmark: typeof 1 vs typeof 2

Script Preparation code:

var test1=10000
var test2="testing"
var test3=true
var test4=undefined

Tests:

typeof
typeof test1 typeof test2 typeof test3 typeof test4
typeof 2
typeof(test1) typeof(test2) typeof(test3) typeof(test4)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
typeof
typeof 2

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches to calling the `typeof` function in JavaScript:

1. Direct function call: `typeof testX`
2. Method call on an object (in this case, the `Object` global): `typeof(testX)`

The benchmark consists of four test cases:

* Two simple numeric literals (`test1`, `test2`) using direct function calls
* One boolean value (`test3`) using a direct function call
* One `undefined` value (`test4`) using a direct function call

**Options Compared**

We're comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. Direct function call: `typeof testX`
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward syntax
		+ No additional object creation or lookup required
	* Cons:
		+ May involve more overhead due to direct function call resolution
2. Method call on an object (using the `Object` global): `typeof(testX)`
	* Pros:
		+ Can potentially be faster due to optimized method lookup and caching by the browser
	* Cons:
		+ Requires creating an object reference (`testX`) which may introduce additional overhead

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses a library (not explicitly mentioned) that provides the `Object` global, which is used for the method call approach. The purpose of this library is to provide a way to access built-in JavaScript objects and functions.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the tested approaches rely on any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly available in modern browsers.

**Other Considerations**

* Browser caching: Since both test cases use hardcoded values, browser caching may impact the results. The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value may not reflect real-world performance due to cached results.
* Browser optimization: Modern browsers often optimize built-in functions like `typeof`, so the difference in execution speed might be negligible.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark using alternative approaches, consider these options:

1. Using a function constructor (`new Function()`) instead of direct function calls or method calls on an object.
2. Employing some form of caching or memoization to reduce the number of `typeof` calls made by the browser.
3. Using a different global object (e.g., `String`, `Number`, etc.) for the method call approach.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark setup and script preparation code, as well as careful consideration of potential optimizations and pitfalls.

Related benchmarks:

typeof 1 vs typeof 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: typeof vs typeof 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

typeof

typeof 2

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):