Benchmark: isNullish variants

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
nullish coalescing
classic

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/92.0.4515.131 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	877.6 Ops/sec
classic	70.2 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 its various components.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests different approaches to checking if a value is nullish (i.e., either null or undefined). The two test cases are:

1. **Nullish Coalescing**: This test case uses the nullish coalescing operator (`??`) to check if a value is nullish. The code defines an array `arr` and populates it with values from 0 to 100,000 using a while loop.
2. **Classic**: This test case uses a traditional if-else statement to check if a value is nullish.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of different approaches:

* Nullish Coalescing Operator (`??`)
* Traditional if-else statement

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Nullish Coalescing Operator (`??`)**:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and expressive syntax.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support this operator.
2. **Traditional if-else statement**:
	* Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and environments.
	* Cons: More verbose and less readable than the nullish coalescing operator.

**Library Used**

The `arr` array is used to store values from 0 to 100,000, which suggests that this benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript arrays and iteration.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The nullish coalescing operator (`??`) is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It's not widely supported in older browsers or environments, so it may affect the results of this benchmark on those platforms.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses a while loop to populate the `arr` array, which can be an expensive operation.
* The test cases only compare two approaches, but there may be other ways to check if a value is nullish that are not included in this benchmark.
* This benchmark may not be representative of real-world use cases, as it focuses on a specific problem (checking for nullish values) rather than a broader set of tasks.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for checking if a value is nullish include:

* Using the `typeof` operator with the `null` and `undefined` literals: `(value === 'null' || value === 'undefined')`
* Using the `instanceof` operator with the `Null` and `Undefined` constructors: `(value instanceof Null || value instanceof Undefined)`
* Using a more traditional approach, such as checking for the presence of a `valueOf()` method or using a separate function to check if a value is nullish.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics than the two test cases included in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

isNullish variants (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: nullish coalescing vs classic

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

nullish coalescing

classic

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):