Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Request clone with instanceof and typeof
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Instanceof clone vs Typeof clone vs Typeof clone 2
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var url = 'http://google.com' var r = new Request(url)
Tests:
Instanceof clone
r instanceof Request && r.clone()
Typeof clone
typeof r === 'object' && 'clone' in r && typeof r.clone === 'function' && r.clone()
Typeof clone 2
!!r && typeof r === 'object' && 'clone' in r && typeof r.clone === 'function' && r.clone()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Instanceof clone
Typeof clone
Typeof clone 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):
Let's dive into the details of this JavaScript microbenchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of cloning objects in JavaScript using two different approaches: `instanceof` and `typeof`. The benchmark tests three variations: 1. `Instanceof clone` 2. `Typeof clone` 3. `Typeof clone 2` The benchmark creates a new instance of the `Request` class with a URL, and then clones it using each of the two approaches. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. **`instanceof`**: This method checks if an object is an instance of a specific constructor function. In this case, we're checking if the cloned object is an instance of `Request`. 2. **`typeof`**: This operator returns the data type of a value. We're using it to check if the cloned object has a `clone` property and if that property is a function. **Pros and Cons** 1. **`instanceof`**: * Pros: Efficient, as it only checks for instance membership. * Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of checking constructor functions. 2. **`typeof`**: * Pros: Faster, as it's a simple property check. * Cons: May require more computations, especially if the object has multiple `clone` properties. **Library and Special JS Features** The benchmark uses the `Request` class from the `fetch` library, which is used for making HTTP requests. The `Request` class provides methods for cloning objects. There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to test similar benchmarks using different approaches, here are some alternatives: 1. **Using `Object.create()`**: Instead of using `instanceof`, you could use `Object.create()` to create a new object that inherits from the original object. 2. **Using a Proxy**: You could create a proxy object and then clone it to test the performance of different cloning approaches. 3. **Using a custom cloning function**: You could write a custom cloning function using recursion or iteration to test the performance of your own cloning approach. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of precision as the original benchmark, but they can still be useful for exploring different approaches and techniques.
Related benchmarks:
XHR vs fetch
ajax vs fetch
.includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() vs .search() fix
XHR vs fetch without JSON parsing
Split vs new URL pathname
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?