Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
instanceof vs typeof gyuguyguy
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
instanceof vs typeof
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = () => {};
Tests:
instanceof
obj instanceof Object
typeof
typeof obj === "function"
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
instanceof
typeof
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.4 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=517428" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
typeof
32.6M/s
instanceof
12.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
typeof
32,610,850 Ops/sec
instanceof
12,349,535 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is comparing the performance of two different ways to check if an object is a function using: 1. `obj instanceof Object` (instanceof) 2. `typeof obj === "function"` (typeof) **Options compared:** * Using the `instanceof` operator * Using the `typeof` operator with a string comparison **Pros and cons of each approach:** * **Using `instanceof` operator:** + Pros: - More explicit and readable way to check if an object is a function. - Can be faster in some cases, since it doesn't require a string comparison. + Cons: - May not work as expected with certain types of objects or inheritance hierarchies. * **Using `typeof` operator with string comparison:** + Pros: - More concise and expressive way to check if an object is a function. - Works well with most types of objects and inheritance hierarchies. + Cons: - Requires an explicit string comparison, which can be slower than the `instanceof` operator. **Library and special JavaScript features used:** * No libraries are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the benchmark is running on a modern JavaScript engine that supports the `typeof` operator. * Special JavaScript feature: + The use of arrow functions (`() => {}`) is mentioned in the script preparation code. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and allows for concise, anonymous function expressions. **Other considerations:** * The benchmark uses a desktop Safari 17 browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 device platform. * The test cases are executed at a rate of approximately 32 million executions per second. **Alternatives to JavaScript microbenchmarks like MeasureThat.net:** * Other online platforms that offer similar benchmarking capabilities, such as: + JSBench + Benchmark.js + Microbenchmark * Browser-specific benchmarks or testing tools, such as Chrome DevTools' performance profiling tools. * Library-specific benchmarks or testing tools, such as Jest's benchmarking features.
Related benchmarks
typeof vs instanceof Function
typeof vs instanceof Function vs call
instanceof vs typeof franco
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?