Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
null vs undefined iiffe
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
null case vs undefined case
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
null case
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { null; }
undefined case
(function(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 case
undefined case
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
6 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 144 on Ubuntu
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
null case
3432364.0 Ops/sec
undefined case
2544217.8 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two test cases, each measuring the performance difference between `null` and `undefined` when used as a default value in a JavaScript context. The tests are designed to evaluate which one is more efficient in terms of execution speed. **Options compared: null vs undefined** In this benchmark, we have two options being compared: 1. **Null (`null`)**: In JavaScript, `null` represents the absence of any object value. It's often used as a placeholder or default value. 2. **Undefined (`undefined`)**: In JavaScript, `undefined` is a primitive value that indicates an uninitialized variable or a variable that has been declared but not assigned a value. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** * **Null (`null`):** + Pros: - More predictable behavior in some cases (e.g., when using the `=== null` equality operator). - Can be easier to work with, especially for developers who are accustomed to working with null values. + Cons: - May lead to confusing code if not handled carefully (e.g., checking for null instead of undefined). * **Undefined (`undefined`):** + Pros: - More intuitive behavior in some cases (e.g., when using the `=== undefined` equality operator). - Can make code more readable, especially when explicitly indicating an uninitialized variable. + Cons: - May lead to unexpected behavior if not handled carefully. **Other considerations:** * **Library usage:** None of the test cases use any libraries or external dependencies. * **Special JS features or syntax:** The benchmark uses ES6-style syntax (`let`, `for` loops) but does not include any experimental or esoteric features that might affect performance. **Alternatives:** To perform similar benchmarks, developers can experiment with other values, such as: * Empty strings (`""`) * Zero (`0`) * Falsey values (e.g., `false`, `NaN`, `Infinity`) Keep in mind that the results may vary depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine being used. By running these benchmarks, MeasureThat.net provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different default value options in JavaScript, which can inform coding decisions and help developers optimize their code for better performance.
Related benchmarks:
Return true vs empty body
Return true vs return;
Nullish coalescing vs logical OR operators
accessing null vs undefined
void 0 vs undefined vs variable containing undefined
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?