Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
accessing null vs undefined
(version: 0)
measurethat.net is weird
Comparing performance of:
null vs undefined
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
null
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { null; }
undefined
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { undefined; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
null
undefined
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.1 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=614240" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
undefined
3.2M/s
null
3.2M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
undefined
3,232,010 Ops/sec
null
3,220,274 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is testing two different approaches to handling `null` and `undefined` values in JavaScript. **Options Compared** There are only two options being compared: 1. Accessing `null` using the `null` keyword. 2. Accessing `undefined` using the `undefined` keyword. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages: * **Accessing `null`**: When you access a variable that's explicitly set to `null`, it means you're checking for `null` and if it's present, you can take specific action. However, in modern JavaScript, this is not necessary because `null` is treated as `false` in most contexts (e.g., `if (var === null)`). * **Accessing `undefined`**: When you access a variable that hasn't been initialized or has been deleted, it means you're checking for the absence of value. In modern JavaScript, this is essential because `undefined` is treated as a distinct value from other types, and attempting to use an uninitialized variable can lead to errors. **Other Considerations** In general, accessing `null` is generally considered bad practice because it's unnecessary and can lead to confusing code. Accessing `undefined`, on the other hand, is crucial for handling situations where variables are not initialized or have been deleted. **Library/Dependency** There is no library or dependency mentioned in this benchmark definition. The test cases rely solely on vanilla JavaScript. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic variable assignment and conditional statements (e.g., `if` statements). **Alternative Benchmarks** To measure the performance of accessing `null` and `undefined`, other alternatives could include: 1. Benchmarking the execution time of a script that accesses an uninitialized variable versus one that uses the `undefined` keyword. 2. Comparing the execution time of accessing a variable that's explicitly set to `null` versus using a conditional statement to check for `null`. 3. Using a library like Jest or Mocha to write unit tests that measure the performance of different approaches to handling `null` and `undefined`. In summary, this benchmark is measuring the performance difference between two basic JavaScript approaches to handling `null` and `undefined`. While both are valid, accessing `undefined` is generally considered more important due to its critical role in handling uninitialized variables.
Related benchmarks
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round()
toFixed() vs Math.round().toString()
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs ~~(someFloat * 10000) / 10000
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?