Benchmark: isNumber vs typeof

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)"></script>

Tests:

lodash
_.isNumber(3);
es6
typeof 3 === 'number';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
es6

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 131 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	65730076.0 Ops/sec
es6	104210784.0 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 data and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The main goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `_.isNumber` function from Lodash library and using the built-in `typeof` operator in JavaScript (specifically, checking if a value is equal to `'number'`) for type checking.

In essence, the test aims to measure which approach is faster, more efficient, or both.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Lodash**: The Lodash library provides a utility function called `_.isNumber` that takes a single argument and returns a boolean indicating whether the value is a number. This function is likely implemented in C++ and optimized for performance.
2. **Built-in `typeof` operator (es6)**: In JavaScript, you can use the `typeof` operator to check the type of a value. The syntax for checking if a value is equal to `'number'` is `typeof value === 'number'`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash (`_.isNumber`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Highly optimized performance (likely written in C++).
		+ Simplifies type checking, as it's a single function call.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library) to your project.
		+ Might be overkill for simple type checking needs.
2. **Built-in `typeof` operator (es6)**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional dependencies or overhead.
		+ Simple, straightforward syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual effort to write and maintain the type checking logic.
		+ Might be slower due to the need for dynamic typing.

**Library used:**

The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. The `_.isNumber` function is a utility function that provides a convenient way to perform type checks, especially when working with functional programming or when you need to simplify your code.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided data. However, it's worth noting that the Lodash library itself uses some advanced JavaScript concepts and techniques, such as:

* **Currying**: A function is transformed from a function that takes multiple arguments into a sequence of functions, each taking one argument.
* **Higher-order functions**: Functions that take other functions as arguments or return functions as output.

**Other alternatives:**

If you don't want to use the Lodash library, you can consider using other JavaScript libraries or frameworks that provide similar type checking functionality, such as:

* **TypeScript**: A statically typed language that can help catch type-related errors at compile-time.
* **Flowtype**: A static type checker for JavaScript and other languages.

Alternatively, you can implement your own simple type checking logic using built-in functions like `typeof`, `Number.isInteger()`, or `Number.isFinite()`.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, project requirements, and performance concerns.

Related benchmarks:

isNumber vs typeof (version: 0)

lodash vs es6

Comparing performance of: lodash vs es6

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

es6

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):