Benchmark: Optional chaining native vs && && code vs babel-transformed

Script Preparation code:

Tests:

Optional Chaining
foo?.bar?.baz?.qux?.aaa
&& && code
foo && foo.bar && foo.bar.baz && foo.bar.baz.qux && foo.bar.baz.qux.aaa
babel-transformed
(_foo = foo) === null || _foo === void 0 ? void 0 : (_foo$bar = _foo.bar) === null || _foo$bar === void 0 ? void 0 : (_foo$bar$baz = _foo$bar.baz) === null || _foo$bar$baz === void 0 ? void 0 : (_foo$bar$baz$qux = _foo$bar$baz.qux) === null || _foo$bar$baz$qux === void 0 ? void 0 : _foo$bar$baz$qux.aaa;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
&& && code
babel-transformed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	7568161.0 Ops/sec
&& && code	1545922.0 Ops/sec
babel-transformed	517915.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark with three test cases: Optional Chaining, &&&& code, and Babel-transformed code.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is not explicitly mentioned in the JSON, but based on the test cases, it can be inferred that the benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to optional chaining (i.e., checking if a property exists before trying to access it) in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Three options are compared:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the `.?.` syntax to check if a property exists before trying to access it.
2. **&& && code**: This approach uses a nested series of `&&` operators to achieve the same result as optional chaining, but using a different syntax.
3. **Babel-transformed code**: This approach uses the `babel-transformed` option in MeasureThat.net, which likely involves compiling or transpiling the JavaScript code to generate equivalent machine code.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Optional Chaining**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable syntax
		+ Less error-prone than using `&& &&` operators
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported in older browsers or environments
		+ Can lead to slower performance if the property is often null or undefined
2. **&& && code**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across different browsers and environments
		+ Can be optimized for better performance by avoiding unnecessary checks
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose syntax can make it harder to read and maintain
		+ May lead to more errors due to incorrect usage of the `&&` operators
3. **Babel-transformed code**
	* Pros:
		+ Can generate optimized machine code for better performance
		+ Supports a wider range of browsers and environments
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to compilation or transpilation
		+ Can make the code harder to understand and maintain

**Library**

None of the options rely on any specific libraries.

**Special JS Feature**

The test case uses the `?.` syntax, which is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. This syntax allows for optional chaining, where you can chain multiple property accesses together using the `.?.` syntax. While it's not widely supported yet, it's becoming increasingly popular and may eventually become a standard feature.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks, consider the following:

* Make sure to include all relevant hardware and software configurations in your test cases.
* Use a representative sample size for each test case.
* Avoid introducing unnecessary overhead or latency in your benchmark code.
* Consider using a profiling tool to identify performance bottlenecks in your application.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Destructuring assignment**: Instead of using `&& &&` operators, you can use destructuring assignment to achieve similar results. For example: `const { bar, baz } = foo.bar; const qux = baz.qux;`
* **Object property access with parentheses**: You can use object property access with parentheses instead of `?.`. For example: `foo.bar.baz.qux.aaa` becomes `(foo.bar && foo.bar.baz) && (foo.bar.baz.qux && foo.bar.baz.qux.aaa)`
* **Using a utility function**: If you want to avoid using the `?.` syntax, you can create a utility function that checks if an object property exists before trying to access it. For example: `function optionalChaining(obj, prop) { return obj && obj[prop]; }`

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability, depending on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining native vs && && code vs babel-transformed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs && && code vs babel-transformed

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

&& && code

babel-transformed

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):