for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
null;
}
(function(undefined) {
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
undefined;
}
})()
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
null case | |
undefined case |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
null case | 3867990.8 Ops/sec |
undefined case | 3837629.8 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.
What is being tested?
The provided JSON represents two test cases, each measuring the performance difference between null
and undefined
when used as a default value in a JavaScript context. The tests are designed to evaluate which one is more efficient in terms of execution speed.
Options compared: null vs undefined
In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:
null
): In JavaScript, null
represents the absence of any object value. It's often used as a placeholder or default value.undefined
): In JavaScript, undefined
is a primitive value that indicates an uninitialized variable or a variable that has been declared but not assigned a value.Pros and Cons of each approach:
null
):=== null
equality operator).undefined
):=== undefined
equality operator).Other considerations:
let
, for
loops) but does not include any experimental or esoteric features that might affect performance.Alternatives:
To perform similar benchmarks, developers can experiment with other values, such as:
""
)0
)false
, NaN
, Infinity
)Keep in mind that the results may vary depending on the specific use case and JavaScript engine being used.
By running these benchmarks, MeasureThat.net provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of different default value options in JavaScript, which can inform coding decisions and help developers optimize their code for better performance.