--- In [email protected], "ag_rcuren" <robert.vancuren...@...> wrote: > > I once ran some tests to test this. What I found is that checking against > null is much faster. Sorry I do not have the test code around anymore but it > would be very simple to build again. > > My guess as to why is that if (foo) is implicit and the conditional could be > met by a couple things. if foo was a boolean it being null or false would > cause the conditional to fail. If the object was a number it being null or <= > 0 would cause the condition to fail. So on and so forth. > > When checking if (foo != null) you are explicitly checking if that object is > null not if that object is null or false, or 0, ect so this check is much > faster. > > I also think if (foo != null) is better syntax to look at because I can tell > exactly what you are checking for, that is you are intersted in if foo is > null not that it is == false or <= 0 or anything like that. I feel that if > (foo) is lazy. > > So in the interest of speed and clean code you should always check for > exactly what you want.
I like this article on the subject by Josh McDonald http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/2009/03/on-using-iffoo-vs-iffoo-null.html
