Benchmark: lodash isNil vs === null || === undefined

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = null;
var b = undefined;
var c = NaN;
var d = false;
var e = 'a';
var f = 0;

Tests:

lodash isNil
_.isNil(a); _.isNil(b); _.isNil(c); _.isNil(d); _.isNil(e); _.isNil(f);
native isNil
a === null || a === undefined b === null || b === undefined c === null || c === undefined d === null || d === undefined e === null || e === undefined f === null || f === undefined

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash isNil
native isNil

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches to check if a value is null or undefined: using the Lodash library (`lodash`) with its `isNil` function, versus implementing this functionality natively in JavaScript (using the `=== null || === undefined` syntax).

**Lodash Library and Purpose**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for common tasks. The `isNil` function checks if a value is null or undefined.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `isNil` function is used to check if values `a`, `b`, `c`, `d`, `e`, and `f` are null or undefined.

**Native Implementation**

The native implementation uses the syntax `=== null || === undefined`. This checks if a value is equal to either null or undefined. The first part of the expression (`=== null`) checks if the value is exactly null, while the second part (`=== undefined`) checks if the value is exactly undefined.

Here's why this implementation works:

* In JavaScript, `null` and `undefined` are primitive values that can be compared using the `===` operator.
* When you use `===` with a value and another value of the same type (e.g., `=== null`), it checks for exact equality.
* The `||` operator returns the first "truthy" value it encounters, which is either the null or undefined value itself.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash `isNil`:**

Pros:

* Provides a concise way to check if a value is null or undefined.
* Built-in function with proper handling of edge cases (e.g., NaN).

Cons:

* Requires including an external library, which may impact performance in certain scenarios.
* May introduce additional overhead due to the library's initialization and execution.

**Native Implementation (`=== null || === undefined`):**

Pros:

* No external dependencies or libraries required.
* Can be more efficient since it uses built-in operators.

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation of this functionality, which can lead to errors if not done correctly.
* May have edge cases that are handled differently (e.g., NaN).

**Other Considerations**

Both approaches work well for checking null and undefined values. However, the native implementation may be more suitable when:

* Performance is critical, and external dependencies need to be minimized.
* You're working with a limited JavaScript environment or need to ensure compatibility across different browsers.

On the other hand, using Lodash's `isNil` function might be preferred when:

* Code readability and conciseness are essential.
* You want to avoid manual implementation of this functionality.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for checking null and undefined values include:

* Using a simple function like `function isNil(x) { return x == null; }`.
* Utilizing the `== null` syntax, which checks if a value is exactly null (but not equal).
* Implementing your own custom solution using bitwise operators or regex patterns.

In general, when working with JavaScript null and undefined values, it's essential to consider performance, code readability, and compatibility across different browsers and environments.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash isNil	1607050.2 Ops/sec
native isNil	1153960.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash isNil vs === null || === undefined (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash isNil vs native isNil

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash isNil

native isNil

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):