Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
instanceof vs symbol property on Error()
(version: 2)
Comparing performance of:
instanceof vs has symbol
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
const err = Error() function isInstanceOf(x) { return x instanceof InstOf } const symb = Symbol() let errWithSymb = Error() errWithSymb[symb] = 1 function hasSymb(x) { return typeof x === "object" && symb in x }
Tests:
instanceof
isInstanceOf(err)
has symbol
hasSymb(errWithSymb)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
instanceof
has symbol
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):
I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition provides two functions: `isInstanceOf` and `hasSymb`. These functions are used to test the performance of accessing a property on an object using the `instanceof` operator versus directly accessing a symbol as a property. * `isInstanceOf(x)` checks if the input `x` is an instance of a specific class (`InstOf`). The `Instanceof` keyword in JavaScript returns true if the object passed to it is an instance or subclass of the specified constructor. * `hasSymb(x)` checks if the input `x` has a property with the same symbol as the predefined symbol `symb`. The symbol is assigned to an error object (`errWithSymb`) using the syntax `errWithSymb[symb] = 1`. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two approaches: * **Using `instanceof`**: This approach uses the `instanceof` operator to check if an object is an instance of a specific class. * **Directly accessing a symbol as a property**: This approach directly accesses the symbol as a property on the object using bracket notation (`x[symb]`). **Pros and Cons** **Using `instanceof`:** * Pros: * Widely supported by most JavaScript engines. * Can be used with any class, not just objects with a symbol property. * Cons: * May be slower due to the overhead of invoking the constructor check. * May not work correctly for non-instantiable constructors or functions. **Directly accessing a symbol as a property:** * Pros: * Can be faster than using `instanceof` because it avoids the overhead of constructor checks. * Works with symbols, which can be used to create unique and private properties in objects. * Cons: * Requires access to the symbol, which may not always be possible (e.g., when accessing a property through a proxy). * Limited support for certain browsers or JavaScript engines. **Other Considerations** The benchmark also considers the following: * **Proxy objects**: The `hasSymb` function uses a proxy object to create a new error with the symbol property. This allows testing of how different JavaScript engines handle symbols in proxies. * **Symbol creation**: The benchmark creates symbols using the `Symbol()` constructor, which is available in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and later standards. **Library Usage** The benchmark uses the `InstOf` class to create instances for testing with `instanceof`. This class is not a built-in JavaScript class but rather a custom class that can be defined by the user. The purpose of this class is to provide a testable instance that can be used with `instanceof`. **Special JS Features/Syntax** This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, generators, or classes (beyond the custom `InstOf` class). However, it does rely on the behavior of symbols and proxy objects in different browsers and JavaScript engines. In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches to accessing properties on objects using `instanceof` versus directly accessing a symbol as a property. The results can help developers understand the performance implications of using these approaches in their own code.
Related benchmarks:
Function: typeof vs instanceof
typeof vs instanceof Function
(instanceof Function) vs (typeof function)
typeof vs instanceof Function vs call
instanceof vs typeof for objects
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?