Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
dolittle mark 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
typeof vs undefined
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
typeof
const foo = 123; const bar = typeof foo === "number"; const baz = Boolean(bar) console.log(baz)
undefined
const foo = 123; const bar = foo !== undefined const baz = Boolean(bar) console.log(baz)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
typeof
undefined
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 break down the provided benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The provided `Benchmark Definition` json represents a simple JavaScript benchmark that tests two different scenarios: 1. **`typeof`**: This test checks if the type of the variable `foo` is "number" using the `typeof` operator. 2. **`undefined`**: This test checks if the variable `foo` is not `undefined` using the `!==` operator. The benchmark does not have any specific purpose or goal, but it seems to be a simple example of how to create a microbenchmark using MeasureThat.net's API. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, two options are being compared: 1. **Using `typeof`**: This option uses the `typeof` operator to check if the type of `foo` is "number". 2. **Using `!== undefined`**: This option uses the `!==` operator to check if `foo` is not `undefined`. **Pros and Cons** Both options have their pros and cons: * Using `typeof`: + Pros: Simple and concise way to check type. + Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of calling a function. * Using `!== undefined`: + Pros: Fast and efficient way to check for null or undefined values. + Cons: Requires explicit checking for null or undefined values, which can lead to additional computations. **Library Used** There is no specific library used in this benchmark. The code uses built-in JavaScript operators (`typeof`, `!==`) without any external dependencies. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a simple example of how to create a microbenchmark using MeasureThat.net's API. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to compare these two options, here are some alternative approaches: * Using `Number.isNaN()` instead of `typeof foo === "number"` for the first test case. * Using a more modern approach with the optional chaining operator (`?.`) instead of explicit null checks (`!== undefined`). * Comparing using different browsers or environments to see if the results change. Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be directly applicable to this specific benchmark, but they can provide additional insights into how different JavaScript features and syntax affect performance.
Related benchmarks:
binaryStringPad
Add Zeroes
padStart vs concat
padStart vs slice 4
padStart vs slice vs string
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?