Benchmark: Undefineds - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

void
void 0
normal undefined
undefined
array
[]._
string
''._

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
void
normal undefined
array
string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll do my best to explain the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests how different variants of "undefined" are handled in JavaScript code.

**Options compared**

There are four test cases:

1. **`void`**: Tests the behavior when `void` is used as an undefined value.
2. **`undefined`**: Tests the behavior when a literal `undefined` value is used (which should be the standard way to represent nullability in JavaScript).
3. **`[]._`** (Note: this looks like it's syntactically incorrect and may be a typo): Tests an unusual way of representing "undefined" using arrays and dot notation.
4. **`''._`** (Similar note as above): Tests another unconventional way of representing "undefined".

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. `void`: This is likely the most common and widely accepted way to represent nullability in JavaScript, so it's a good test case.
2. `undefined`: As mentioned earlier, this should be the standard way to represent nullability in JavaScript, so it's also a good test case.
3. `[]._` and **`''._`**: These two are likely attempts to create edge cases or obscure representations of "undefined". They might be used for error handling or other purposes that require special attention.

**Other considerations**

In general, the test cases seem to focus on how different variants of "undefined" are handled by JavaScript engines. This is important because nullability can have significant performance implications in certain situations (e.g., when working with arrays or objects).

**Library usage**

None of the provided test cases explicitly use any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these test cases.

**Benchmark preparation code and Description**

The provided benchmark definition contains two pieces of script preparation code, which are empty. This means that the actual benchmarking code is not provided, but MeasureThat.net will likely generate it automatically based on the provided `Benchmark Definition` JSON.

If you'd like to create a similar benchmark, you can use MeasureThat.net's online tool or experiment with writing your own JavaScript microbenchmark using techniques such as creating a simple test script and measuring its execution time.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/86.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 86 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
void	828351104.0 Ops/sec
normal undefined	826981120.0 Ops/sec
array	96014120.0 Ops/sec
string	826563904.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Undefineds (version: 0)

All JS code-golf undefined variants.

Comparing performance of: void vs normal undefined vs array vs string

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

void

normal undefined

array

string

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):