Benchmark: test for null(2)

Script Preparation code:

function Foo(){
  this.foo = function(){};
}

var foo = new Foo();

Tests:

call
foo.foo();
null test
if(foo.foo!=null)foo.foo();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
call
null test

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the execution time of two different approaches: calling `foo.foo()` directly, and using an if-statement to check for nullity. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a simple class called `Foo` with a method `foo()`. This class is then instantiated and assigned to a variable named `foo`.

```javascript
function Foo(){\r\n  this.foo = function(){};\r\n}\r\n\r\nvar foo = new Foo();
```

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which suggests that the benchmark does not rely on any DOM-related functionality.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. `call`: This test case calls `foo.foo()` directly.
2. `null test`: This test case uses an if-statement to check for nullity before calling `foo.foo()`. The condition checks if the value of `foo` is not null, and if so, it calls the `foo()` method.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Directly calling `foo.foo()`
2. Using an if-statement to check for nullity before calling `foo.foo()`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Direct Call (call)**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward
* No additional overhead from the if-statement

Cons:

* May not be optimized by the JavaScript engine, as it doesn't provide any information about the value being checked for nullity.

**If-Statement Check (null test)**

Pros:

* Provides useful information to the JavaScript engine about the value being checked for nullity.
* Can help optimize the benchmarking process by allowing the engine to skip unnecessary checks.

Cons:

* Adds additional overhead due to the if-statement and potential branching.
* May not be as efficient as a direct call in certain cases.

**Library: Foo**

The `Foo` class is used to test the behavior of calling `foo.foo()`. The library purpose is to provide a simple example class that demonstrates a method with a single return value, making it easy to test.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to be modified or expanded, other alternatives could include:

* Testing different types of objects (e.g., arrays, numbers) to see if they affect performance.
* Adding more complex logic to the `Foo` class to test handling errors or exceptions.
* Using a different method to check for nullity, such as using the optional chaining operator (`?.`) or the `in` operator.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark and its setup.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 9_3_5 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/601.1.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/9.0 Mobile/13G36 Safari/601.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 9 on iOS 9.3.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
call	4868692.5 Ops/sec
null test	2768269.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test for null(2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: call vs null test

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

call

null test

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):