Related
Given this snippet of JavaScript...
var a;
var b = null;
var c = undefined;
var d = 4;
var e = 'five';
var f = a || b || c || d || e;
alert(f); // 4
Can someone please explain to me what this technique is called (my best guess is in the title of this question!)? And how/why it works exactly?
My understanding is that variable f will be assigned the nearest value (from left to right) of the first variable that has a value that isn't either null or undefined, but I've not managed to find much reference material about this technique and have seen it used a lot.
Also, is this technique specific to JavaScript? I know doing something similar in PHP would result in f having a true boolean value, rather than the value of d itself.
See short-circuit evaluation for the explanation. It's a common way of implementing these operators; it is not unique to JavaScript.
This is made to assign a default value, in this case the value of y, if the x variable is falsy.
The boolean operators in JavaScript can return an operand, and not always a boolean result as in other languages.
The Logical OR operator (||) returns the value of its second operand, if the first one is falsy, otherwise the value of the first operand is returned.
For example:
"foo" || "bar"; // returns "foo"
false || "bar"; // returns "bar"
Falsy values are those who coerce to false when used in boolean context, and they are 0, null, undefined, an empty string, NaN and of course false.
Javacript uses short-circuit evaluation for logical operators || and &&. However, it's different to other languages in that it returns the result of the last value that halted the execution, instead of a true, or false value.
The following values are considered falsy in JavaScript.
false
null
"" (empty string)
0
Nan
undefined
Ignoring the operator precedence rules, and keeping things simple, the following examples show which value halted the evaluation, and gets returned as a result.
false || null || "" || 0 || NaN || "Hello" || undefined // "Hello"
The first 5 values upto NaN are falsy so they are all evaluated from left to right, until it meets the first truthy value - "Hello" which makes the entire expression true, so anything further up will not be evaluated, and "Hello" gets returned as a result of the expression. Similarly, in this case:
1 && [] && {} && true && "World" && null && 2010 // null
The first 5 values are all truthy and get evaluated until it meets the first falsy value (null) which makes the expression false, so 2010 isn't evaluated anymore, and null gets returned as a result of the expression.
The example you've given is making use of this property of JavaScript to perform an assignment. It can be used anywhere where you need to get the first truthy or falsy value among a set of values. This code below will assign the value "Hello" to b as it makes it easier to assign a default value, instead of doing if-else checks.
var a = false;
var b = a || "Hello";
You could call the below example an exploitation of this feature, and I believe it makes code harder to read.
var messages = 0;
var newMessagesText = "You have " + messages + " messages.";
var noNewMessagesText = "Sorry, you have no new messages.";
alert((messages && newMessagesText) || noNewMessagesText);
Inside the alert, we check if messages is falsy, and if yes, then evaluate and return noNewMessagesText, otherwise evaluate and return newMessagesText. Since it's falsy in this example, we halt at noNewMessagesText and alert "Sorry, you have no new messages.".
Javascript variables are not typed, so f can be assigned an integer value even though it's been assigned through boolean operators.
f is assigned the nearest value that is not equivalent to false. So 0, false, null, undefined, are all passed over:
alert(null || undefined || false || '' || 0 || 4 || 'bar'); // alerts '4'
There isn't any magic to it. Boolean expressions like a || b || c || d are lazily evaluated. Interpeter looks for the value of a, it's undefined so it's false so it moves on, then it sees b which is null, which still gives false result so it moves on, then it sees c - same story. Finally it sees d and says 'huh, it's not null, so I have my result' and it assigns it to the final variable.
This trick will work in all dynamic languages that do lazy short-circuit evaluation of boolean expressions. In static languages it won't compile (type error). In languages that are eager in evaluating boolean expressions, it'll return logical value (i.e. true in this case).
This question has already received several good answers.
In summary, this technique is taking advantage of a feature of how the language is compiled. That is, JavaScript "short-circuits" the evaluation of Boolean operators and will return the value associated with either the first non-false variable value or whatever the last variable contains. See Anurag's explanation of those values that will evaluate to false.
Using this technique is not good practice for several reasons; however.
Code Readability: This is using Boolean operators, and if the behavior of how this compiles is not understood, then the expected result would be a Boolean value.
Stability: This is using a feature of how the language is compiled that is inconsistent across multiple languages, and due to this it is something that could potentially be targeted for change in the future.
Documented Features: There is an existing alternative that meets this need and is consistent across more languages. This would be the ternary operator:
() ? value 1: Value 2.
Using the ternary operator does require a little more typing, but it clearly distinguishes between the Boolean expression being evaluated and the value being assigned. In addition it can be chained, so the types of default assignments being performed above could be recreated.
var a;
var b = null;
var c = undefined;
var d = 4;
var e = 'five';
var f = ( a ) ? a :
( b ) ? b :
( c ) ? c :
( d ) ? d :
e;
alert(f); // 4
Return output first true value.
If all are false return last false value.
Example:-
null || undefined || false || 0 || 'apple' // Return apple
It's setting the new variable (z) to either the value of x if it's "truthy" (non-zero, a valid object/array/function/whatever it is) or y otherwise. It's a relatively common way of providing a default value in case x doesn't exist.
For example, if you have a function that takes an optional callback parameter, you could provide a default callback that doesn't do anything:
function doSomething(data, callback) {
callback = callback || function() {};
// do stuff with data
callback(); // callback will always exist
}
Its called Short circuit operator.
Short-circuit evaluation says, the second argument is executed or evaluated only if the first argument does not suffice to determine the value of the expression. when the first argument of the OR (||) function evaluates to true, the overall value must be true.
It could also be used to set a default value for function argument.`
function theSameOldFoo(name){
name = name || 'Bar' ;
console.log("My best friend's name is " + name);
}
theSameOldFoo(); // My best friend's name is Bar
theSameOldFoo('Bhaskar'); // My best friend's name is Bhaskar`
It means that if x is set, the value for z will be x, otherwise if y is set then its value will be set as the z's value.
it's the same as
if(x)
z = x;
else
z = y;
It's possible because logical operators in JavaScript doesn't return boolean values but the value of the last element needed to complete the operation (in an OR sentence it would be the first non-false value, in an AND sentence it would be the last one). If the operation fails, then false is returned.
It will evaluate X and, if X is not null, the empty string, or 0 (logical false), then it will assign it to z. If X is null, the empty string, or 0 (logical false), then it will assign y to z.
var x = '';
var y = 'bob';
var z = x || y;
alert(z);
Will output 'bob';
According to the Bill Higgins' Blog post; the Javascript logical OR assignment idiom (Feb. 2007), this behavior is true as of v1.2 (at least)
He also suggests another use for it (quoted):
"lightweight normalization of cross-browser differences"
// determine upon which element a Javascript event (e) occurred
var target = /*w3c*/ e.target || /*IE*/ e.srcElement;
I have recently read some code that uses !! to convert a variable to boolean for evaluation in an if statement. This seems somewhat redundant to me as the variable would be evaluated for its boolean value anyway. Are there any performance benefits to doing this or is it for better browser support?
Sample Code:
var x = 0;
var atTop = x===window.scrollY;
if(!!atTop){
alert("At the top of the page.");
}
Edit:
I have also seen this for operands that are not of boolean types, but I had always assumed that using if would evaluate the boolean value of the variable anyway as all values in Javascript are either "truthy" or "falsey".
Sample Code:
var x = 1;//or any other value including null, undefined, some string, etc
if(!!x){//x is "truthy"
//wouldn't using if(x) be the same???
console.log("something...");
}
Short answer: No, there is no reason.
In your code, it's already a boolean type, there is no need to convert, and convert it back again: you will always get the same result. Actually, if you have a boolean value (true or false), when you use !! with any of them, it will be converted back to its original value:
console.log(!!true); // Will always be "true"
console.log(typeof !!true); // It's still a "boolean" type
console.log(!!false); // Will always be "false"
console.log(typeof !!false); // It stills a "boolean" type
Answer for edited question: Yes, it's the same. That's what if(...) actually does - it's trying to convert any type to boolean.
Here is a small test, you can play around with that and add whatever you want inside the initialArr array in order to test whether it behaves the same with if and !!:
const initialArr = [
undefined,
null,
true,
false,
0,
3,
-1,
+Infinity,
-Infinity,
Infinity,
'any',
'',
function() { return 1 },
{},
{ prop: 1 },
[],
[0],
[0, 1]
];
function testIsTheSame(arr) {
let equolityCounter = 0;
arr.forEach(item => {
let ifStatement = false;
let doubleNotStatement = !!item;
if (item) {
ifStatement = true;
}
if (
ifStatement === doubleNotStatement &&
typeof ifStatement === typeof doubleNotStatement
) {
equolityCounter++;
}
});
console.log(`Is the same: ${equolityCounter === arr.length}`);
}
testIsTheSame(initialArr);
I would say it was mostly done for code-readability. I doubt there is any significant performance nor compatibility implications (someone feel free to test this please)
But in the code-readability aspect, it would imply to me that this variable previously was not a boolean, but we want to evaluate it as one, if you add new logic concerning this variable, keep that in mind.
Although in your case its already boolean, so its 100% redundant, but I'd guess just a habit of someone for the above reasoning applied excessively, and/or seeing it elsewhere and copying that pattern without fully understanding it (short story time: in C# you can name a protected term a variable name by adding #, so var #class = "hello";, a junior dev just assumed all variable names needed # in front of them, and coded that way. I wonder if someone assumed that an if without a comparison operator needs to have !! in front of it as a comparison operator)
There isn't any run-time benefit (or an objective one) whatsoever to doing this in an if statement. The evaluation performed by the if statement will yield precisely the same result as the evaluation produced by double exclamation mark. There is no difference.
Double exclamation marks is a useful expression to ensure boolean value based on truthyness. Consider, for instance:
var text = undefined;
console.log(text); // undefined
console.log(!!text); // false
// It would make sense here, because a boolean value is expected.
var isTextDefined = !!text;
// It would also affect serialization
JSON.stringify(text); // undefined (non-string)
JSON.stringify(!!text); // "false"
I suppose that this is a habit that was picked up because of the above use cases, thus always converting to boolean when wishing to address a variable's truthyness. It's easier for us (humans and programmers) to follow a rule when it's always applied. You'll either use the blinkers in your car all the time, even when there's nobody around, or it's likely that you'll occasionally (or maybe often) forget to signal when you should have.
It all depends on the value of atTop variable. Follow the discussion here.
In summary, if the value of atTop is anything different to a boolean, the first negation will convert it to a boolean value (negated). Second negation will return the boolean value to the equivalent boolean of the original atTop value.
For example, if atTop is undefined, first ! will turn it to boolean true, then the second ! turns it to boolean false (which would be the equivalent boolean of undefined)
However, in your code the atTop value is the result of an strict equality ===, which means you always get a boolean as a result in atTop. Thus, you don't need to convert a non-boolean value to boolean, and so, the !! is not needed.
Given this snippet of JavaScript...
var a;
var b = null;
var c = undefined;
var d = 4;
var e = 'five';
var f = a || b || c || d || e;
alert(f); // 4
Can someone please explain to me what this technique is called (my best guess is in the title of this question!)? And how/why it works exactly?
My understanding is that variable f will be assigned the nearest value (from left to right) of the first variable that has a value that isn't either null or undefined, but I've not managed to find much reference material about this technique and have seen it used a lot.
Also, is this technique specific to JavaScript? I know doing something similar in PHP would result in f having a true boolean value, rather than the value of d itself.
See short-circuit evaluation for the explanation. It's a common way of implementing these operators; it is not unique to JavaScript.
This is made to assign a default value, in this case the value of y, if the x variable is falsy.
The boolean operators in JavaScript can return an operand, and not always a boolean result as in other languages.
The Logical OR operator (||) returns the value of its second operand, if the first one is falsy, otherwise the value of the first operand is returned.
For example:
"foo" || "bar"; // returns "foo"
false || "bar"; // returns "bar"
Falsy values are those who coerce to false when used in boolean context, and they are 0, null, undefined, an empty string, NaN and of course false.
Javacript uses short-circuit evaluation for logical operators || and &&. However, it's different to other languages in that it returns the result of the last value that halted the execution, instead of a true, or false value.
The following values are considered falsy in JavaScript.
false
null
"" (empty string)
0
Nan
undefined
Ignoring the operator precedence rules, and keeping things simple, the following examples show which value halted the evaluation, and gets returned as a result.
false || null || "" || 0 || NaN || "Hello" || undefined // "Hello"
The first 5 values upto NaN are falsy so they are all evaluated from left to right, until it meets the first truthy value - "Hello" which makes the entire expression true, so anything further up will not be evaluated, and "Hello" gets returned as a result of the expression. Similarly, in this case:
1 && [] && {} && true && "World" && null && 2010 // null
The first 5 values are all truthy and get evaluated until it meets the first falsy value (null) which makes the expression false, so 2010 isn't evaluated anymore, and null gets returned as a result of the expression.
The example you've given is making use of this property of JavaScript to perform an assignment. It can be used anywhere where you need to get the first truthy or falsy value among a set of values. This code below will assign the value "Hello" to b as it makes it easier to assign a default value, instead of doing if-else checks.
var a = false;
var b = a || "Hello";
You could call the below example an exploitation of this feature, and I believe it makes code harder to read.
var messages = 0;
var newMessagesText = "You have " + messages + " messages.";
var noNewMessagesText = "Sorry, you have no new messages.";
alert((messages && newMessagesText) || noNewMessagesText);
Inside the alert, we check if messages is falsy, and if yes, then evaluate and return noNewMessagesText, otherwise evaluate and return newMessagesText. Since it's falsy in this example, we halt at noNewMessagesText and alert "Sorry, you have no new messages.".
Javascript variables are not typed, so f can be assigned an integer value even though it's been assigned through boolean operators.
f is assigned the nearest value that is not equivalent to false. So 0, false, null, undefined, are all passed over:
alert(null || undefined || false || '' || 0 || 4 || 'bar'); // alerts '4'
There isn't any magic to it. Boolean expressions like a || b || c || d are lazily evaluated. Interpeter looks for the value of a, it's undefined so it's false so it moves on, then it sees b which is null, which still gives false result so it moves on, then it sees c - same story. Finally it sees d and says 'huh, it's not null, so I have my result' and it assigns it to the final variable.
This trick will work in all dynamic languages that do lazy short-circuit evaluation of boolean expressions. In static languages it won't compile (type error). In languages that are eager in evaluating boolean expressions, it'll return logical value (i.e. true in this case).
This question has already received several good answers.
In summary, this technique is taking advantage of a feature of how the language is compiled. That is, JavaScript "short-circuits" the evaluation of Boolean operators and will return the value associated with either the first non-false variable value or whatever the last variable contains. See Anurag's explanation of those values that will evaluate to false.
Using this technique is not good practice for several reasons; however.
Code Readability: This is using Boolean operators, and if the behavior of how this compiles is not understood, then the expected result would be a Boolean value.
Stability: This is using a feature of how the language is compiled that is inconsistent across multiple languages, and due to this it is something that could potentially be targeted for change in the future.
Documented Features: There is an existing alternative that meets this need and is consistent across more languages. This would be the ternary operator:
() ? value 1: Value 2.
Using the ternary operator does require a little more typing, but it clearly distinguishes between the Boolean expression being evaluated and the value being assigned. In addition it can be chained, so the types of default assignments being performed above could be recreated.
var a;
var b = null;
var c = undefined;
var d = 4;
var e = 'five';
var f = ( a ) ? a :
( b ) ? b :
( c ) ? c :
( d ) ? d :
e;
alert(f); // 4
Return output first true value.
If all are false return last false value.
Example:-
null || undefined || false || 0 || 'apple' // Return apple
It's setting the new variable (z) to either the value of x if it's "truthy" (non-zero, a valid object/array/function/whatever it is) or y otherwise. It's a relatively common way of providing a default value in case x doesn't exist.
For example, if you have a function that takes an optional callback parameter, you could provide a default callback that doesn't do anything:
function doSomething(data, callback) {
callback = callback || function() {};
// do stuff with data
callback(); // callback will always exist
}
Its called Short circuit operator.
Short-circuit evaluation says, the second argument is executed or evaluated only if the first argument does not suffice to determine the value of the expression. when the first argument of the OR (||) function evaluates to true, the overall value must be true.
It could also be used to set a default value for function argument.`
function theSameOldFoo(name){
name = name || 'Bar' ;
console.log("My best friend's name is " + name);
}
theSameOldFoo(); // My best friend's name is Bar
theSameOldFoo('Bhaskar'); // My best friend's name is Bhaskar`
It means that if x is set, the value for z will be x, otherwise if y is set then its value will be set as the z's value.
it's the same as
if(x)
z = x;
else
z = y;
It's possible because logical operators in JavaScript doesn't return boolean values but the value of the last element needed to complete the operation (in an OR sentence it would be the first non-false value, in an AND sentence it would be the last one). If the operation fails, then false is returned.
It will evaluate X and, if X is not null, the empty string, or 0 (logical false), then it will assign it to z. If X is null, the empty string, or 0 (logical false), then it will assign y to z.
var x = '';
var y = 'bob';
var z = x || y;
alert(z);
Will output 'bob';
According to the Bill Higgins' Blog post; the Javascript logical OR assignment idiom (Feb. 2007), this behavior is true as of v1.2 (at least)
He also suggests another use for it (quoted):
"lightweight normalization of cross-browser differences"
// determine upon which element a Javascript event (e) occurred
var target = /*w3c*/ e.target || /*IE*/ e.srcElement;
This question already has answers here:
Javascript || operator
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Question 1
What does options.left = options.left || _KSM.drawOption.left means? I know _KSM.drawOption is referring to the object (also a function), but how does the || operator work here? Does it mean if _KMS.drawOption.left is undefinded, assign options.left to options.left?
Question 2
Why the author didn't use this keyword in this case? I assume it's because in this demo he didn't create an instance, because he just do the calling once. Rigtht? (I've seen a lots of this in jquery plugin that's why I'm consufed when the author call the function name instead of this within a function)
Question 1
This is a way to set a default value to a variable. It actually evaluate the left side and if it is falsy, the variable will be equal to the right side (even if it is also falsy).
That is a bad way of assigning default variable especially when working with integer. 0 is considered as falsy, so you will never be able to assign 0 as a left property. Instead, it will always be the default parameter of _KMS.drawOption .
Question 2
We don't have the full code so we can only assume. But my assumption would be that draw is an event, a function bind with addEventListener. That mean the context (this value) is the target of the event. My guess would be a canvas.
Logical Operators in JavaScript work a bit differently than most people expect.
Logical OR (||)
Returns expr1 if it can be converted to true; otherwise, returns
expr2. Thus, when used with Boolean values, || returns true if either
operand is true; if both are false, returns false.
So instead of the expression resulting in a boolean value, it returns the first value that isn't "falsey". This has the benefit of being a great way to fill in default values in case it is undefined, null, 0, or an empty string.
var myObj = { name: 'Josh' };
myObj.age = myObj.age || 33;
Logical AND (&&)
Returns expr1 if it can be converted to false; otherwise, returns
expr2. Thus, when used with Boolean values, && returns true if both
operands are true; otherwise, returns false.
Basically just the opposite. Since any expression that evaluates to false will short circuit the logical check, it can be useful to test for the existence of a field, before trying to use it.
var myObj = null;
if(myObj && myObj.person && myObj.person.name === "Josh") // false, no error
var myObj = {};
if(myObj && myObj.person && myObj.person.name === "Josh") // false, no error
var myObj = {person: {}};
if(myObj && myObj.person && myObj.person.name === "Josh") // false, no error
var myObj = {person: {name: "Josh"}};
if(myObj && myObj.person && myObj.person.name === "Josh") // true
However! Caution should be taken here because in the case of both boolean values true or false and integer values 0 or anything not 0 you might end up overwriting a legitimate value.
Question 2: Not enough context
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