Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
typeof first or second
(version: 0)
Object lookup performance
Comparing performance of:
typeof first vs typeof second
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4, e: 5 };
Tests:
typeof first
typeof obj.d !== 'undefined'
typeof second
'undefined' !== typeof obj.d;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
typeof first
typeof second
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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and what are the pros and cons of each approach. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two different ways to check if a value is defined or not. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of `typeof` operator with both approaches: 1. `typeof first` 2. `'undefined' !== typeof second` **What are the options being compared?** The two options being compared are: 1. Using the `typeof` operator with a variable (`first`) as its argument. 2. Using the strict equality operator (`'undefined' !==`) with a variable (`second`) as its operand. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Using the `typeof` operator with a variable (`first`):** * Pros: + Easy to read and write + Intuitive for developers who are familiar with the `typeof` operator * Cons: + May be slower due to the overhead of function calls (e.g., `typeof` is a built-in function) + Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., `typeof null` returns `'object'`) 2. **Using the strict equality operator (`'undefined' !==`) with a variable (`second`):** * Pros: + May be faster due to its simplicity and lack of function call overhead + More explicit and safe for checking undefined values (e.g., `x === undefined` will return `false` instead of `'undefined' !== x`) * Cons: + Less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with this syntax + May require additional null checks to avoid false positives **Library and special JS features:** The benchmark does not use any external libraries, but it assumes that the `typeof` operator is available and implemented correctly by the JavaScript engine. There are no special JS features used in this benchmark. **Other alternatives:** If you wanted to test alternative approaches for checking if a value is defined or not, some possible options could be: * Using `hasOwnProperty()` on an object to check if a property exists (e.g., `obj.hasOwnProperty('property')`) * Using `in` operator to check if a variable is in the global scope (e.g., `x in global`) * Using a custom function or utility library for checking undefined values However, these alternatives would likely have different performance characteristics and may not be as straightforward to use as the two options being compared.
Related benchmarks:
undefined vs. typeof vs. in vs. hasOwnProperty
undefined vs. typeof vs. in vs. hasOwnProperty big object
hasOwnProperty string vs number
in vs hasOwn
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?