It really depends in which browser you test. I'm seeing little to no difference in IE and Firefox - but a noticeable difference in Safari and Opera.
http://dev.jquery.com/~john/ticket/equals/ Safari: +3ms, +2ms, +7ms, +3ms, +4ms Opera: +46ms, +35ms, +21ms, +19ms, +36ms (over 500,000 iterations) It's not massive, but it's measurable. As far is its use - I see no problem with it. It's more precise and instills good habits (being more precise about what you want to target). I also see no problem with this: if ( typeof text !== "object" && text != null ) We want items that aren't objects, aren't null, and aren't undefined. Looks fine to me. As far as convention, we're already working to formalize it: http://docs.jquery.com/JQuery_Core_Style_Guidelines It's very basic right now (and we'll probably switch from foo === undefined to typeof foo === "undefined" - we'll see) but it's a work in progress. --John On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Matt Kruse <m...@thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2:20 pm, Kean <shenan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> While it would not affect the results, I believe you can shave a few >> ms off by using === > > Over 10,000,000 iterations, I see no difference in time between using > == and ===. > If the return type of 'typeof' varied, a difference might be found. > > It's just a minor quibble anyway. It's similar to lines like this in > the jquery source: > > if ( typeof text !== "object" && text != null ) > > Fixing things like this would tighten and improve the code a bit, IMO. > > Matt Kruse >
