Benchmark: isNullish variants 4

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;

Tests:

nullish coalescing
const isNullish = (value) => (value ?? true) === true arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i));
classic
const isNullish = value => value === null || value === undefined; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i));
classic with ==
const isNullish = value => value == null; arr.forEach(i => isNullish(i));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
nullish coalescing
classic
classic with ==

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
nullish coalescing	1251.0 Ops/sec
classic	118.7 Ops/sec
classic with ==	1307.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is testing three different approaches to check if a value is nullish (i.e., either null or undefined). The tests are part of the "isNullish variants" series, which aims to measure the performance differences between various methods for checking nullish values in JavaScript.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Nullish Coalescing**: This approach uses the nullish coalescing operator (`??`) to check if a value is nullish. The benchmark defines a function `isNullish` that takes a value and returns `true` if it's nullish, otherwise `false`. The function is then applied to each element in an array using `forEach`.
2. **Classic**: This approach uses the traditional equality operators (`===`) to check if a value is null or undefined. The benchmark defines another function `isNullish` that takes a value and returns `true` if it's null or undefined, otherwise `false`. Again, this function is applied to each element in an array using `forEach`.
3. **Classic with `==`**: This approach uses the loose equality operator (`==`) instead of the strict equality operator (`===`). The benchmark defines a function `isNullish` that takes a value and returns `true` if it's null or undefined, otherwise `false`. As before, this function is applied to each element in an array using `forEach`.

**Library Used**

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses several special JavaScript features:

* Nullish coalescing operator (`??`)
* Loose equality operator (`==`)
* Strict equality operator (`===`)

These features are part of the ECMAScript standard and are widely supported by modern browsers.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Nullish Coalescing**:
	* Pros: More concise, expressive, and readable code.
	* Cons: May not work as expected in older JavaScript engines or environments with limited support for `??`.
2. **Classic**:
	* Pros: Widely supported by older browsers and JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: Less concise and more verbose than the nullish coalescing approach.
3. **Classic with `==`**:
	* Pros: Similar to the classic approach but with a slightly different behavior due to the loose equality operator.
	* Cons: Still less efficient and more verbose than the nullish coalescing approach.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Code readability and maintainability
* Browser and JavaScript engine support
* Performance requirements (in this case, benchmarked by execution speed)

In general, the nullish coalescing operator is a good choice when you need to check for nullish values in modern browsers. The classic approach is still useful for older browsers or environments with limited support for `??`, while the classic with `==` approach can be useful for specific scenarios where the loose equality operator provides an advantage.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to checking nullish values, consider:

* Using a custom implementation of `==` and `===` operators in older browsers or environments.
* Using polyfills or transpilers to add support for nullish coalescing operator (`??`) in older browsers or environments.
* Avoiding the use of loose equality operators (`==`) altogether and using strict equality operators (`===`) instead.

Related benchmarks:

isNullish variants 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: nullish coalescing vs classic vs classic with ==

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

nullish coalescing

classic

classic with ==

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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