Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test for null(2)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
call vs null test
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function Foo(){ this.foo = function(){}; } var foo = new Foo();
Tests:
call
foo.foo();
null test
if(foo.foo!=null)foo.foo();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
call
null test
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'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results. **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the execution time of two different approaches: calling `foo.foo()` directly, and using an if-statement to check for nullity. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code defines a simple class called `Foo` with a method `foo()`. This class is then instantiated and assigned to a variable named `foo`. ```javascript function Foo(){\r\n this.foo = function(){};\r\n}\r\n\r\nvar foo = new Foo(); ``` **Html Preparation Code** There is no HTML preparation code provided, which suggests that the benchmark does not rely on any DOM-related functionality. **Test Cases** The benchmark consists of two individual test cases: 1. `call`: This test case calls `foo.foo()` directly. 2. `null test`: This test case uses an if-statement to check for nullity before calling `foo.foo()`. The condition checks if the value of `foo` is not null, and if so, it calls the `foo()` method. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: 1. Directly calling `foo.foo()` 2. Using an if-statement to check for nullity before calling `foo.foo()` **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Direct Call (call)** Pros: * Simple and straightforward * No additional overhead from the if-statement Cons: * May not be optimized by the JavaScript engine, as it doesn't provide any information about the value being checked for nullity. **If-Statement Check (null test)** Pros: * Provides useful information to the JavaScript engine about the value being checked for nullity. * Can help optimize the benchmarking process by allowing the engine to skip unnecessary checks. Cons: * Adds additional overhead due to the if-statement and potential branching. * May not be as efficient as a direct call in certain cases. **Library: Foo** The `Foo` class is used to test the behavior of calling `foo.foo()`. The library purpose is to provide a simple example class that demonstrates a method with a single return value, making it easy to test. **Special JS Feature or Syntax: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If the benchmark were to be modified or expanded, other alternatives could include: * Testing different types of objects (e.g., arrays, numbers) to see if they affect performance. * Adding more complex logic to the `Foo` class to test handling errors or exceptions. * Using a different method to check for nullity, such as using the optional chaining operator (`?.`) or the `in` operator. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark and its setup.
Related benchmarks:
Return true vs return;
.bind() vs function
javascript new vs Object.create
javascript new vs Object.create 2
Const vs Function
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?