Benchmark: typeof vs isNaN - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

isNaN(5)
isNaN(5)
typeof
typeof 5 === 'number'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
isNaN(5)
typeof

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests the performance of two different approaches: `isNaN` and `typeof`. The test cases are designed to measure the execution time of these functions when called with specific inputs.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`isNaN(5)`**: This option tests the behavior of the `isNaN()` function, which returns a boolean value indicating whether its argument is not a number.
2. **`typeof 5 === 'number'`**: This option tests the behavior of the `typeof` operator, which returns a string describing the type of its operand.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **`isNaN(5)`**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward implementation.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the additional function call overhead.
2. **`typeof 5 === 'number'`**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient since it doesn't involve an additional function call.
	* Cons: May require additional string comparison, which can add complexity.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark, but the `typeof` operator uses a built-in JavaScript feature to determine the type of its operand. The `isNaN()` function also relies on built-in JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Features**

The `typeof` operator has been a part of JavaScript since its inception and is a fundamental part of the language. It's used extensively in many JavaScript applications.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

There is no preparation code provided for this benchmark, which means that the test cases are likely designed to be simple and straightforward.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or libraries, here are some options:

* For a more efficient `isNaN()` implementation, you could consider using the `Number.isNaN()` method, which is available in modern JavaScript engines.
* If you need more control over the type checking process, you might consider using a library like `lodash` or `util.type`, which provide more advanced type checking functionality.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and overhead, so it's essential to carefully evaluate your specific use case before opting for an alternative approach.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
isNaN(5)	1219779000.0 Ops/sec
typeof	1214663000.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

typeof vs isNaN (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: isNaN(5) vs typeof

Created: 6 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

isNaN(5)

typeof

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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