Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
hello test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
null vs typeof
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var input = "hello world";
Tests:
null
input !== null;
typeof
typeof input === "string";
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
null
typeof
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 being tested. **Overview of the Benchmark** The benchmark being tested is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript in detecting whether a variable or value is null or undefined, and whether it's a string. The test cases are comparing different approaches to achieve this detection. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **Null Check**: The first test case checks if `input` is not equal to null (`input !== null`). This test case measures the performance of checking for nullity in a variable. 2. **Type Detection**: The second test case checks if the type of `input` is a string using the `typeof` operator (`typeof input === "string"`). This test case measures the performance of detecting the type of a value. **Comparison of Options** The benchmark compares different options to achieve the above detection: 1. **Direct Null Check**: Checking for nullity by comparing with `null`. This approach is straightforward and efficient, as it only requires a simple comparison. 2. **Type Detection using typeof**: Using the `typeof` operator to detect the type of the value. This approach can be more efficient than direct null checks, as it only returns one of three possible values: string, number, or object. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Direct Null Check** * Pros: + Simple and straightforward + Only requires a simple comparison * Cons: + May incur unnecessary overhead due to the comparison operation 2. **Type Detection using typeof** * Pros: + Can be more efficient than direct null checks, as it only returns one of three possible values + Provides additional type information (e.g., number, object) * Cons: + May incur additional overhead due to the `typeof` operator + Requires a function call to execute **Library Usage** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned as being used. However, it's possible that some internal libraries or optimizations in the JavaScript engine may be utilized. **Special JS Feature/ Syntax** No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on simple variable checks and type detection using basic operators (`===`, `typeof`). **Other Alternatives** Other alternatives to achieve similar results might include: * Using a custom implementation of the `null` check, potentially leveraging hardware-assisted null detection (e.g., `ptrace`) or compiler optimizations. * Employing more advanced techniques for type detection, such as using a type inference engine or static analysis tools. Please note that these alternatives are not explicitly being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on measuring the performance of basic JavaScript operations and type detection methods.
Related benchmarks:
jquery vs vanilla js
toDom(this) vs mkDom(arg)
isString Test
yoyo007
yoyo007ww
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?