Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Native isNaN() vs Custom isNaN method
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Custom not number vs Custom NaN vs Custom number vs isNan not number vs isNan NaN vs isNaN number
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Custom not number
return ("-8A" > 0 || 0 > "-8A");
Custom NaN
return (NaN > 0 || 0 > NaN);
Custom number
return (6 > 0 || 0 > 6);
isNan not number
return isNaN("-8A");
isNan NaN
return isNaN(NaN);
isNaN number
return isNaN(6);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (6)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Custom not number
Custom NaN
Custom number
isNan not number
isNan NaN
isNaN number
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):
**What is tested in the provided JSON?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which compares two approaches: using the native `isNaN()` function and creating a custom implementation of `isNaN()`. The benchmark tests the performance of these two approaches for different scenarios: * Checking if a string is not a number * Checking if a value is NaN (Not a Number) * Checking if an integer is not a number **Options compared:** There are two options being compared: 1. **Native `isNaN()` function**: This uses the built-in `isNaN()` function in JavaScript, which checks if a value is not a number. 2. **Custom implementation of `isNaN()`**: This creates a custom implementation of `isNaN()` using simple conditional statements. **Pros and Cons:** * Native `isNaN()` function: * Pros: * Faster execution speed due to built-in optimization * More reliable results, as it is part of the standard library * Cons: * Less flexible and less control over the logic * Custom implementation of `isNaN()`: * Pros: * More flexible and allows for custom logic * Can be more readable for certain use cases * Cons: * Slower execution speed due to basic conditional statements **Library usage:** There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON, but `isNaN()` is a built-in function in JavaScript. **Special JS features or syntax:** The benchmark does not mention any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only uses standard JavaScript syntax for testing the performance of native functions and custom implementations. **Alternative approaches:** Other alternatives to create a custom implementation of `isNaN()` could include: * Using a library like [lodash.isNaN()](https://lodash.com/docs/4.17.15#isNaN) or [Math.js](https://mathjs.org/) * Implementing a custom function using bitwise operations (e.g., checking for non-numeric values) * Utilizing advanced techniques, such as using a try-catch block to check if a value is NaN However, these alternatives might not be included in the benchmark, and their performance compared to the native `isNaN()` function would need to be evaluated.
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() asd
Intl.DateTimeFormat() vs Date().ISOString()
Number.isInteger() vs typeof
What's faster? cached Intl.NumberFormat vs new Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString currency
Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString yoyo
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?