Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
typeof vs isNaN
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
isNaN(5) vs typeof
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
isNaN(5)
isNaN(5)
typeof
typeof 5 === 'number'
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
isNaN(5)
typeof
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
5 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:147.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/147.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 147 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=625364" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
isNaN(5)
635.9M/s
typeof
566.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
isNaN(5)
635,926,400 Ops/sec
typeof
566,428,736 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's tested in this specific benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests the performance of two different approaches: `isNaN` and `typeof`. The test cases are designed to measure the execution time of these functions when called with specific inputs. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **`isNaN(5)`**: This option tests the behavior of the `isNaN()` function, which returns a boolean value indicating whether its argument is not a number. 2. **`typeof 5 === 'number'`**: This option tests the behavior of the `typeof` operator, which returns a string describing the type of its operand. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief analysis of each approach: 1. **`isNaN(5)`**: * Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation. * Cons: May not be as efficient due to the additional function call overhead. 2. **`typeof 5 === 'number'`**: * Pros: Can be more efficient since it doesn't involve an additional function call. * Cons: May require additional string comparison, which can add complexity. **Library and Special JS Features** There is no specific library being used in this benchmark, but the `typeof` operator uses a built-in JavaScript feature to determine the type of its operand. The `isNaN()` function also relies on built-in JavaScript functionality. **Special JS Features** The `typeof` operator has been a part of JavaScript since its inception and is a fundamental part of the language. It's used extensively in many JavaScript applications. **Benchmark Preparation Code** There is no preparation code provided for this benchmark, which means that the test cases are likely designed to be simple and straightforward. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or libraries, here are some options: * For a more efficient `isNaN()` implementation, you could consider using the `Number.isNaN()` method, which is available in modern JavaScript engines. * If you need more control over the type checking process, you might consider using a library like `lodash` or `util.type`, which provide more advanced type checking functionality. Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and overhead, so it's essential to carefully evaluate your specific use case before opting for an alternative approach.
Related benchmarks
typeof number vs. Number.isNan vs. isNan
isnan vs typeof
typeof vs typeof isNaN
typeof number vs. Number.isNan vs. isNan vs self comparison. Versus let
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?