Benchmark: Comparing null with ==, ===, and Object.is()

Tests:

==
null == null
===
null === null
Object.is()
Object.is(null,null)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
==
===
Object.is()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.164 Safari/537.36 Edg/91.0.864.71

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
==	966876096.0 Ops/sec
===	978573376.0 Ops/sec
Object.is()	7993756.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark tests three different ways to compare whether two values are equal:

1. **Null checking using `==`**: This is an older way of comparing values in JavaScript, which checks if both operands are null or undefined before performing the comparison.
2. **Strict null checking using `===`**: This is a more modern way of comparing values, which not only checks for null and undefined but also performs type checking to ensure that both operands have the same value type (e.g., number, string, boolean).
3. **Object.is() method**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), this method provides a strict equality check, similar to `===`, but is specifically designed for comparing primitive values.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

* **`==`**:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to understand, widely supported across browsers.
	+ Cons: Can lead to unexpected results when dealing with complex data types or NaN (Not a Number) values.
* **`===`**:
	+ Pros: Provides stronger type checking, reducing the risk of unexpected behavior.
	+ Cons: May not be as intuitive for developers who are used to `==`.
* **`Object.is()`**:
	+ Pros: Designed specifically for equality checks, provides strong type safety and is more accurate than `===`.
	+ Cons: Requires ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) or later support, may not work in older browsers.

The benchmark tests each of these approaches on the same condition (`null == null`), allowing users to compare the execution times for each method.

Other alternatives to these methods include:

* Using `===` with additional checks for type equality.
* Implementing a custom equality function that handles edge cases, such as NaN values.
* Utilizing libraries or frameworks like Lodash or Immutable.js, which provide robust equality checks and other utility functions.

In terms of special JavaScript features or syntax, there is no specific feature being highlighted in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `Object.is()` method relies on a subtle difference in how NaN values are handled between ES5 and ES6, which might be interesting for developers familiar with these versions of JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Comparing null with ==, ===, and Object.is() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: == vs === vs Object.is()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

==

===

Object.is()

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):