I realize that this question is extremely similar to many others, but I must be missing some nuance with checking whether a variable is set or not. I have seen this in other developers code:
if(foo){
doSomething(foo);
}
else{
alert('error of whatever');
}
With the intent that the doSomething() will only execute if foo is set or not undefined. However, when I google this, it seems everyone says "typeof" should be used instead of the above method. I specifically see this in use with angular, like this:
if($scope.property){
dothis();
}
Am I missing something? When I see the above code, it seems to work, but all the answers I see never say this is the correct way to check if something is set or exists.
For if() checks, in MOST scenarios where you are checking for the existence of a property on an object (your situation), what you have described is perfectly valid, easy and convenient. It checks for the existence of the property and returns true if it exists.
However, there are plenty of nuanced areas where a typeof check is "more" correct, particularly if your type is being coerced in any way via == or if you want to differentiate between null and undefined.
For instance, if null is a valid value for your property to have but undefined is not, in your example dothis() would still be called. You would prevent this with a typeof check.
if (typeof $scope.property === 'undefined') {
dothis();
}
Finally, if you are checking for the existence of a variable instead of the existence of a property, an exception will be thrown if the variable you are checking is not defined, forcing you to use a typeof check.
In those scenarios, verbosity is your friend.
This has to do with the concept of "truthiness". Any value besides false, 0, "", null, undefined, and NaN is "truthy" which means the first block of the if-statement will run. For instance:
if ("") {
alert("falsie"); // won't run because the empty string ("") is falsie
} else {
alert("truthie"); // will run
}
whereas
if ("something") {
alert("truthy"); // will run because "something" is truthy
} else {
alert("falsie"); // won't run
}
Going back to your example, if foo is truthy (meaning that it has ANY value other than false, 0, "", null, undefined, and NaN) then it will run the first block of the if-statement (which has the doSomething() function in it).
You could also use short circuit evaluation and do this in one line.
($scope.property && doThis())
It is better to use typeof if you need to explicitly check whether the value is undefined or not. If you just want to check if the value is truthy, then you don't need typeof.
The reason the typeof operator is preferred is because it doesn't throw a ReferenceError exception when used with an undeclared variable.
However, it is important to note that variables initialized as null will return "object", so to avoid this issue, the following code is recommended:
if (typeof variable === 'undefined' || variable === null) {
// variable is undefined or null
}
What you are checking this way is if foo is not:
false
Undefined
Null
+0, −0, or NaN
Empty String
More info here:
https://javascriptweblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/truth-equality-and-javascript/
This way your function is only executed if foo is valid.
You may want to be more specific and check against a certain type with typeof.
var foo = 'foo';
if (typeof foo === 'string') { // true
doSomething();
}
The typeof operator returns a string indicating the type of the
unevaluated operand.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/typeof
This question already has answers here:
Detecting an undefined object property
(50 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
From the book Maintainable JavaScript it mentioned :
// Bad: Testing to see if an argument was passed
function doSomething(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4){
if (arg4 != null){
doSomethingElse();
}
}
but I feel using != null here is quite effective, it filtered both the case of argument not passed or it is passed as null
any reason why the author suggest it is bad ?
!= null is false for undefined, it basically means x !== null && x !== undefined. != does type coercion, and one of the effects of that is that it treats null and undefined as equivalent (null == undefined is true).
So unless you want that, some people recommend not using != with null (or undefined).
And you're quite right that the code defends against two (well actually three) possibilities:
Nothing was passed for the argument at all.
null was passed.
undefined was passed.
But the comment says it's a bad way to test whether an argument was passed, and it is: Because it doesn't catch passing null or undefined. (Passing in null and not passing in anything are different cases.) That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad way to check the argument for a specific function.
Sure. In javascript you can have null values and undefined values. And they're not the same. A fast and easy approach to check if the arg is valid would probably be:
if (arg4)
And this way you check arg4 is not null, not undefined, and not false. Please be careful with this last condition, you may inform a false value consciously here :-)
EDIT: T.J. Crowder is right here. It's easy to use this and will work in most cases, but be careful.
I would highly recommend watching http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Null-References-The-Billion-Dollar-Mistake-Tony-Hoare - a brilliant presentation on this matter from the man who created it himself.
Because you can pass anything to a function, also null. If you would to the following:
var obj = new MyObject();
// ...
obj = null;
// ...
doSomething(arg1, arg2, arg3, obj);
You would have passed an argument but your checking would fail because the passed reference is null. Always use the following:
if(typeof arg4 != 'undefined')
// ...
Can not quite understand the reasoning for this. In the following code the localStorage of an item is alerted as undefined, but if I use an if(x==undefined) syntax it does not work. Can somebody explain what is the problem. Thank you.
alert(localStorage["x"]);
if(localStorage["x"]=="undefined"){alert("y");}
The top line alerts undefined
The bottom line does not alert y for me.
It doesn't contain the string "undefined", it contains a value of the type undefined:
if (localStorage["x"] == undefined) { alert("y"); }
The value undefined is possible to change in older browsers, so good practice is to check the type instead:
if (typeof localStorage["x"] == 'undefined') { alert("y"); }
Try:
if(typeof( localStorage["x"]) == 'undefined'){alert("y");}
OR
if( localStorage["x"] == undefined){alert("y");}
OR
if( !localStorage["x"] ){alert("y");}
The two ways of checking for something being undefined are:
typeof foo === "undefined"
and
foo === undefined
In the first case, it will be true if foo was never defined or the value of foo is undefined.
In the second case, it will only be true if foo was defined (otherwise it'll break) and its value is undefined.
Checking its value against the string "undefined" is not the same at all!
UPDATE:
When I said that if you try to perform an operation on an object literal's property that isn't defined, I guess I meant if it's undefined at all, and what I meant was something more like this:
obj["x"].toLowerCase()
// or
obj["x"]["y"]
where you are attempting to access/operate on something that is originally undefined. In this case, simply comparing in an if statement should be fine, because of the way object literals report the value...but is very different with normal Javascript variables.
With object literals, if a key (say "x") is not defined, then
obj["x"]
returns a value of undefined, so both the typeof and basic === undefined checks will work and be true.
The whole difference of not being defined or having a value of undefined is different with normal variables.
If you had:
var a;
// or
var a = undefined;
then both the typeof and basic === undefined checks I provided earlier would work and be true. But if you never even declared a, then only the typeof check would work and be true. The === undefined check would break.
Take a look at: http://jsfiddle.net/7npJx/
If you notice in the console, it says b is not defined and breaks the if statement.
Since you're basically looking at an object literal with localStorage, the way to distinguish whether an item is not defined or has a value of undefined is to use in first. So, you could use:
if (!("x" in localStorage)) {
to check if "x" is not a defined property at all, and:
else if (localStorage["x"] === undefined) {
to then check if it is defined but has a value of undefined. Then, using:
else {
would signify that localStorage["x"] is both defined and does not have the value undefined.
In your code though, it's okay to use the typeof or in checks (based on what you want to know) because of the way object literals report properties that aren't defined. Using the basic === undefined is also okay, but as Guffa pointed out, it's possible for the actual value of undefined to be overwritten and then wouldn't work in this comparison. When it comes to normal Javascript variables, typeof and === undefined checks aren't the same.
I have a simple function in my library that checks the validity of an object reference (object here meaning, a reference to a created HTML element, mostly DIV's). It looks like this:
function varIsValidRef(aRef) {
return ( !(aRef == null || aRef == undefined) && typeof(aRef) == "object");
}
While experimenting i found that this has the same effect:
function varIsValidRef(aRef) {
return (aRef) && typeof(aRef) == "object";
}
I understand there are some controversies regarding the short hand () test? While testing against various datatypes (null, undefined, integer, float, string, array) i could find no difference in the final outcome. The function seem to work as expected.
Is it safe to say that these two versions does the exact same thing?
No, in my opinion these functions don't work the same:
First option
If aRef is not undefined or null and the type of the var is object it returns true.
Second option
First we convert aRef to a boolean. Values like null, undefined and 0 become false, everything else become true. If it is true (so not one of those values) it checks if the type is object.
So the second option return false if aRef is 0, something you don't want. And it isn't option a elegant way to check it, because you check if an object or string or something is equal to a boolean.
And at least they don't return the same thing. The first option returns a boolean, but the second option returns the value you put in the function if (aRef) is false:
varIsValidRef(0);
>>> 0
varIsValidRef('');
>>> ""
varIsValidRef(undefined);
>>> undefined
varIsValidref(null);
>>> null
Because JavaScript use these values as falsy values you don't see the difference between these return values if you use if statements or something like that.
So I suggest you to use the first option.
they are strongly different:
!(aRef == null || aRef == undefined)
this part is evaluated to false with any of these "null", null, "undefined", undefined
(aRef)
while this other with any of these 0, "", false, null, undefined, NaN
Interesting case, but it seems logical for both to behave the same way despite being totally different. Lets see the first staement.
return ( !(aRef == null || aRef == undefined) && typeof(aRef) == "object");
Here,
null and undefined both denote a false state combined with the ! infront, makes it equal to the expression aRef which will return true in case both are either not null or not undefined.
They don't do the same, though they end up with the same results.
The first function is more strict in what it will count as false together, or if it's not, if its an object.
The second function will check if aRef is !false or not any of the falsy values (ie [], null, undefined) and check if the type is an object if it isn't.
I would prefer the first function, since its stricter in what it accepts, but if its all the same the function which performs the best should be used.
As for the controversy, its true that you have to be careful about how/when you use falsy values in equations but if it does what you want it to do (and for that you'll need to know what falsy values are) and you implement it correctly it should be no problem. The two are hard to put together though. So with that, if this does what you want it to do, and nothing more or less, by all means use it.
Why is null considered an object in JavaScript?
Is checking
if ( object == null )
Do something
the same as
if ( !object )
Do something
?
And also:
What is the difference between null and undefined?
(name is undefined)
You: What is name? (*)
JavaScript: name? What's a name? I don't know what you're talking about. You haven't ever mentioned any name before. Are you seeing some other scripting language on the (client-)side?
name = null;
You: What is name?
JavaScript: I don't know.
In short; undefined is where no notion of the thing exists; it has no type, and it's never been referenced before in that scope; null is where the thing is known to exist, but it's not known what the value is.
One thing to remember is that null is not, conceptually, the same as false or "" or such, even if they equate after type casting, i.e.
name = false;
You: What is name?
JavaScript: Boolean false.
name = '';
You: What is name?
JavaScript: Empty string
*: name in this context is meant as a variable which has never been defined. It could be any undefined variable, however, name is a property of just about any HTML form element. It goes way, way back and was instituted well before id. It is useful because ids must be unique but names do not have to be.
The difference can be summarized into this snippet:
alert(typeof(null)); // object
alert(typeof(undefined)); // undefined
alert(null !== undefined) //true
alert(null == undefined) //true
Checking
object == null is different to check if ( !object ).
The latter is equal to ! Boolean(object), because the unary ! operator automatically cast the right operand into a Boolean.
Since Boolean(null) equals false then !false === true.
So if your object is not null, but false or 0 or "", the check will pass
because:
alert(Boolean(null)) //false
alert(Boolean(0)) //false
alert(Boolean("")) //false
null is not an object, it is a primitive value. For example, you cannot add properties to it. Sometimes people wrongly assume that it is an object, because typeof null returns "object". But that is actually a bug (that might even be fixed in ECMAScript 6).
The difference between null and undefined is as follows:
undefined: used by JavaScript and means “no value”. Uninitialized variables, missing parameters and unknown variables have that value.
> var noValueYet;
> console.log(noValueYet);
undefined
> function foo(x) { console.log(x) }
> foo()
undefined
> var obj = {};
> console.log(obj.unknownProperty)
undefined
Accessing unknown variables, however, produces an exception:
> unknownVariable
ReferenceError: unknownVariable is not defined
null: used by programmers to indicate “no value”, e.g. as a parameter to a function.
Examining a variable:
console.log(typeof unknownVariable === "undefined"); // true
var foo;
console.log(typeof foo === "undefined"); // true
console.log(foo === undefined); // true
var bar = null;
console.log(bar === null); // true
As a general rule, you should always use === and never == in JavaScript (== performs all kinds of conversions that can produce unexpected results). The check x == null is an edge case, because it works for both null and undefined:
> null == null
true
> undefined == null
true
A common way of checking whether a variable has a value is to convert it to boolean and see whether it is true. That conversion is performed by the if statement and the boolean operator ! (“not”).
function foo(param) {
if (param) {
// ...
}
}
function foo(param) {
if (! param) param = "abc";
}
function foo(param) {
// || returns first operand that can't be converted to false
param = param || "abc";
}
Drawback of this approach: All of the following values evaluate to false, so you have to be careful (e.g., the above checks can’t distinguish between undefined and 0).
undefined, null
Booleans: false
Numbers: +0, -0, NaN
Strings: ""
You can test the conversion to boolean by using Boolean as a function (normally it is a constructor, to be used with new):
> Boolean(null)
false
> Boolean("")
false
> Boolean(3-3)
false
> Boolean({})
true
> Boolean([])
true
What is the difference between null and undefined??
A property when it has no definition is undefined. a null is an object. Its type is object. null is a special value meaning "no value. undefined is not an object, its type is undefined.
You can declare a variable, set it to null, and the behavior is identical except that you'll see "null" printed out versus "undefined". You can even compare a variable that is undefined to null or vice versa, and the condition will be true:
undefined == null
null == undefined
Refer to JavaScript Difference between null and undefined for more detail.
and with your new edit yes
if (object == null) does mean the same if(!object)
when testing if object is false, they both only meet the condition when testing if false, but not when true
Check here: Javascript gotcha
First part of the question:
Why is null considered an object in JavaScript?
It is a JavaScript design error they can't fix now. It should have been type null, not type object, or not have it at all. It necessitates an extra check (sometimes forgotten) when detecting real objects and is source of bugs.
Second part of the question:
Is checking
if (object == null)
Do something
the same as
if (!object)
Do something
The two checks are always both false except for:
object is undefined or null: both true.
object is primitive, and 0, "", or false: first check false, second true.
If the object is not a primitive, but a real Object, like new Number(0), new String(""), or new Boolean(false), then both checks are false.
So if 'object' is interpreted to mean a real Object then both checks are always the same. If primitives are allowed then the checks are different for 0, "", and false.
In cases like object==null, the unobvious results could be a source of bugs. Use of == is not recommended ever, use === instead.
Third part of the question:
And also:
What is the difference between null and undefined?
In JavaScript, one difference is that null is of type object and undefined is of type undefined.
In JavaScript, null==undefined is true, and considered equal if type is ignored. Why they decided that, but 0, "" and false aren't equal, I don't know. It seems to be an arbitrary opinion.
In JavaScript, null===undefined is not true since the type must be the same in ===.
In reality, null and undefined are identical, since they both represent non-existence. So do 0, and "" for that matter too, and maybe the empty containers [] and {}. So many types of the same nothing are a recipe for bugs. One type or none at all is better. I would try to use as few as possible.
'false', 'true', and '!' are another bag of worms that could be simplified, for example, if(!x) and if(x) alone are sufficient, you don't need true and false.
A declared var x is type undefined if no value is given, but it should be the same as if x was never declared at all. Another bug source is an empty nothing container. So it is best to declare and define it together, like var x=1.
People are going round and round in circles trying to figure out all these various types of nothing, but it's all just the same thing in complicated different clothes. The reality is
undefined===undeclared===null===0===""===[]==={}===nothing
And maybe all should throw exceptions.
TLDR
undefined is a primitive value in JavaScript that indicates the implicit absence of a value. Uninitialized variables automatically have this value, and functions without an explicit return statement, return undefined.
null is also a primitive value in JavaScript. It indicates the intentional absence of an object value. null in JavaScript was designed to enable interoperability with Java.
typeof null returns "object" because of a peculiarity in the design of the language, stemming from the demand that JavaScript be interoperable with Java. It does not mean null is an instance of an object. It means: given the tree of primitive types in JavaScript, null is part of the "object-type primitive" subtree. This is explained more fully below.
Details
undefined is a primitive value that represents the implicit absence of a value. Note that undefined was not directly accessible until JavaScript 1.3 in 1998. This tells us that null was intended to be the value used by programmers when explicitly indicating the absence of a value. Uninitialized variables automatically have the value undefined. undefined is a one-of-a-kind type in the ECMAScript specification.
null is a primitive value that represents the intentional absence of an object value. null is also a one-of-a-kind type in the ECMAScript specification.
null in JavaScript was designed with a view to enable interoperability with Java, both from a "look" perspective, and from a programmatic perspective (eg the LiveConnect Java/JS bridge planned for 1996). Both Brendan Eich and others have since expressed distaste at the inclusion of two "absence of value" values, but in 1995 Eich was under orders to "make [JavaScript] look like Java".
Brendan Eich:
If I didn't have "Make it look like Java" as an order from management,
and I had more time (hard to unconfound these two causal factors), then I would have preferred a Self-like "everything's an object"
approach: no Boolean, Number, String wrappers. No undefined and null.
Sigh.
In order to accommodate Java's concept of null which, due to the strongly-typed nature of Java, can only be assigned to variables typed to a reference type (rather primitives), Eich chose to position the special null value at the top of the object prototype chain (i.e. the top of the reference types), and to include the null type as part of the set of "object-type primitives".
The typeof operator was added shortly thereafter in JavaScript 1.1, released on 19th August 1996.
From the V8 blog:
typeof null returns object, and not null, despite null being a
type of its own. To understand why, consider that the set of all
JavaScript types is divided into two groups:
objects (i.e. the Object type)
primitives (i.e. any non-object value)
As such, null means “no object value”, whereas undefined means “no
value”.
Following this line of thought, Brendan Eich designed JavaScript to
make typeof return 'object' for all values on the right-hand side,
i.e. all objects and null values, in the spirit of Java. That’s why
typeof null === 'object' despite the spec having a separate null type.
So Eich designed the hierarchy of primitive types to enable interoperability with Java. This led to him positioning null along with the "object-type primitives" on the hierarchy. To reflect this, when typeof was added to the language shortly thereafter, he chose typeof null to return "object".
The surprise expressed by JavaScript developers at typeof null === "object" is the result of an impedance mismatch (or abstraction leak) between a weakly-typed language (JavaScript) that has both null and undefined, and another, strongly-typed language (Java) that only has null, and in which null is strictly defined to refer to a reference type (not a primitive type).
Note that this is all logical, reasonable and defensible. typeof null === "object" is not a bug, but a second-order effect of having to accommodate Java interoperability.
A number of imperfect backwards rationalisations and/or conventions have emerged, including that undefined indicates implicit absence of a value, and that null indicates intentional absence of a value; or that undefined is the absence of a value, and null is specifically the absence of an object value.
A relevant conversation with Brendan Eich, screenshotted for posterity:
typeof null; // object
typeof undefined; // undefined
The value null represents the intentional absence of any object value. It is one of JavaScript's primitive values and is treated as falsy for boolean operations.
var x = null;
var y;
x is declared & defined as null
y is declared but not defined. It is declared with no value so it is undefined.
z is not declared so would also be undefined if you attempted to use z.
One way to make sense of null and undefined is to understand where each occurs.
Expect a null return value in the following situations:
Methods that query the DOM
console.log(window.document.getElementById("nonExistentElement"));
//Prints: null
JSON responses received from an Ajax request
{
name: "Bob",
address: null
}
RegEx.exec.
New functionality that is in a state of flux. The following returns null:
var proto = Object.getPrototypeOf(Object.getPrototypeOf({}));
// But this returns undefined:
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor({}, "a");
All other cases of non-existence are denoted by undefined (as noted by #Axel). Each of the following prints "undefined":
var uninitalised;
console.log(uninitalised);
var obj = {};
console.log(obj.nonExistent);
function missingParam(missing){
console.log(missing);
}
missingParam();
var arr = [];
console.log(arr.pop());
Of course if you decide to write var unitialised = null; or return null from a method yourself then you have null occurring in other situations. But that should be pretty obvious.
A third case is when you want to access a variable but you don't even know if it has been declared. For that case use typeof to avoid a reference error:
if(typeof unknown !== "undefined"){
//use unknown
}
In summary check for null when you are manipulating the DOM, dealing with Ajax, or using certain ECMAScript 5 features. For all other cases it is safe to check for undefined with strict equality:
if(value === undefined){
// stuff
}
Comparison of many different null checks in JavaScript:
http://jsfiddle.net/aaronhoffman/DdRHB/5/
// Variables to test
var myNull = null;
var myObject = {};
var myStringEmpty = "";
var myStringWhiteSpace = " ";
var myStringHello = "hello";
var myIntZero = 0;
var myIntOne = 1;
var myBoolTrue = true;
var myBoolFalse = false;
var myUndefined;
...trim...
http://aaron-hoffman.blogspot.com/2013/04/javascript-null-checking-undefined-and.html
To add to the answer of What is the differrence between undefined and null, from JavaScript Definitive Guide 6th Edition, p.41 on this page:
You might consider undefined to represent system-level, unexpected,
or error-like absense of value and null to represent program-level,
normal, or expected absence of value. If you need to assign one of
these values to a variable or property or pass one of these values to
a function, null is almost always the right choice.
null and undefined are both false for value equality (null==undefined): they both collapse to boolean false. They are not the same object (null!==undefined).
undefined is a property of the global object ("window" in browsers), but is a primitive type and not an object itself. It's the default value for uninitialized variables and functions ending without a return statement.
null is an instance of Object. null is used for DOM methods that return collection objects to indicate an empty result, which provides a false value without indicating an error.
Some precisions:
null and undefined are two different values. One is representing the absence of a value for a name and the other is representing the absence of a name.
What happens in an if goes as follows for if( o ):
The expression in the parentheses o is evaluated, and then the if kicks in type-coercing the value of the expression in the parentheses - in our case o.
Falsy (that will get coerced to false) values in JavaScript are: '', null, undefined, 0, and false.
The following function shows why and is capable for working out the difference:
function test() {
var myObj = {};
console.log(myObj.myProperty);
myObj.myProperty = null;
console.log(myObj.myProperty);
}
If you call
test();
You're getting
undefined
null
The first console.log(...) tries to get myProperty from myObj while it is not yet defined - so it gets back "undefined". After assigning null to it, the second console.log(...) returns obviously "null" because myProperty exists, but it has the value null assigned to it.
In order to be able to query this difference, JavaScript has null and undefined: While null is - just like in other languages an object, undefined cannot be an object because there is no instance (even not a null instance) available.
For example window.someWeirdProperty is undefined, so
"window.someWeirdProperty === null" evaluates to false while
"window.someWeirdProperty === undefined" evaluates to true.
Moreover checkif if (!o) is not the same as checking if (o == null) for o being false.
In Javascript null is not an object type it is a primitave type.
What is the difference?
Undefined refers to a pointer that has not been set.
Null refers to the null pointer for example something has manually set a variable to be of type null
Look at this:
<script>
function f(a){
alert(typeof(a));
if (a==null) alert('null');
a?alert(true):alert(false);
}
</script>
//return:
<button onclick="f()">nothing</button> //undefined null false
<button onclick="f(null)">null</button> //object null false
<button onclick="f('')">empty</button> //string false
<button onclick="f(0)">zero</button> //number false
<button onclick="f(1)">int</button> //number true
<button onclick="f('x')">str</button> //string true
From "The Principles of Object-Oriented Javascript" by Nicholas C. Zakas
But why an object when the type is null? (In fact, this has been acknowledged as an error by TC39, the committee that designs and maintains JavaScript. You could reason that null is an empty object pointer, making "object" a logical return value, but that’s still confusing.)
Zakas, Nicholas C. (2014-02-07). The Principles of Object-Oriented JavaScript (Kindle Locations 226-227). No Starch Press. Kindle Edition.
That said:
var game = null; //typeof(game) is "object"
game.score = 100;//null is not an object, what the heck!?
game instanceof Object; //false, so it's not an instance but it's type is object
//let's make this primitive variable an object;
game = {};
typeof(game);//it is an object
game instanceof Object; //true, yay!!!
game.score = 100;
Undefined case:
var score; //at this point 'score' is undefined
typeof(score); //'undefined'
var score.player = "felix"; //'undefined' is not an object
score instanceof Object; //false, oh I already knew that.
null is an object. Its type is null. undefined is not an object; its type is undefined.
The best way to think about 'null' is to recall how the similar concept is used in databases, where it indicates that a field contains "no value at all."
Yes, the item's value is known; it is 'defined.' It has been initialized.
The item's value is: "there is no value."
This is a very useful technique for writing programs that are more-easily debugged. An 'undefined' variable might be the result of a bug ... (how would you know?) ... but if the variable contains the value 'null,' you know that "someone, somewhere in this program, set it to 'null.'" Therefore, I suggest that, when you need to get rid of the value of a variable, don't "delete" ... set it to 'null.' The old value will be orphaned and soon will be garbage-collected; the new value is, "there is no value (now)." In both cases, the variable's state is certain: "it obviously, deliberately, got that way."
The other fun thing about null, compared to undefined, is that it can be incremented.
x = undefined
x++
y = null
y++
console.log(x) // NaN
console.log(y) // 0
This is useful for setting default numerical values for counters. How many times have you set a variable to -1 in its declaration?
Undefined means a variable has been declared but it has not been assigned any value while Null can be assigned to a variable representing "no value".(Null is an assignment operator)
2.Undefined is a type itself while Null is an object.
3.Javascript can itself initialize any unassigned variable to undefined but it can never set value of a variable to null. This has to be done programatically.
What is a type?
A type is a way to categorize values. Here is a table with the types in question and their typeof result.
Type
Values type contains
typeof result
Is typeof result a lie?
Undefined
Only: undefined
"undefined"
No
Null
Only: null
"object"
Yes
Object
Infinite amount of values: {}, {a: "b"}, ...
"object"
No
null is not an object, its a value of type Null.
The typeof operator is lying! It returning "object" for null is a mistake in the JavaScript language.
I wrote a chapter about this in my open-source e-book. You can read it here https://github.com/carltheperson/advanced-js-objects
Use null to define something as having no value, use undefined when you expect something might not be defined at all.
For example, if a variable has no value, assign it as null.
var weDontHaveAValue = null;
If you expect that something might be not defined at all, e.g. an optional options argument, use undefined.
if (typeof args.optionalParam !== 'undefined') { }
The main difference between null and undefined is that null represents
a missing object, while undefined represents an uninitialized state of a variable.
You can think of null as an undefined object but undefined will be undefined only
since its type is undefined.
let a;
console.log(a); //undefined, since it is declared but not initialized
console.log(null == undefined) //true
console.log(null === undefined) // false
console.log(typeof null) //object
console.log(typeof undefined) //undefined
Not defined and undefined are not the same thing happening.
age;
You: What is the value of age?
Computer: Okay, let me check my memory/reference table..... at this point (the time of you asking), i do not see any identifier named age, not in this scope/context or any parent scope/context; age is not known to me. Maybe later i will come across an instruction to add that identifier to memory, but it does not exist right now.
var age;
You: What is the value of age;
Computer: Okay, checking my memory... I see an identifier in my reference table with that name age but no value or pointer or anything was assigned to it at the time i added it, so i don't know; you can consider it (age) empty/nothing/useless.
var age = null;
You: What is the value of age;
Computer: Okay, checking my memory... i see age in my reference table: it is null. Basically, it is nothing/empty, you cannot do anything with this value; this was intentional.
Now, i probably should not explain it this way but hopefully it will make sense.
I can see why null was designed to be an object in JS, and i personally like it that way.
null and undefined practically means the same thing: empty/nothing. The difference is in how it is used conceptually.
I look at null as developer-intended nothingness; something being null was done on purpose to represent nothing. I look at undefined as computer-intended nothingness; something not having value by accident of the developer/user.
For example, if you call a function from a library/sdk and got back null, you can almost be sure that was designed on purpose by the developer/author; they specifically wanted to indicate nothingness.
Also see - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/null