Benchmark: Optional Chaining vs Ramda 0.29

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.29.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = {
    b: {
        c: 1,
    }
}

var iterations = R.range(1, 1000000);

Tests:

Optional chaining
iterations.forEach(function () { let field = a?.b?.c; let fieldEmpty = a?.b?.d; });
R.path
iterations.forEach(function () { var aa = R.path(['b', 'c'], a); var bb = R.path(['b', 'd'], a); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional chaining
R.path

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional chaining	8.9 Ops/sec
R.path	1.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**What's being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches for iterating over an object: Optional Chaining and R.path from Ramda library.

**Options compared:**

1. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to safely navigate through nested objects. For example, `let field = a?.b?.c;` will return `undefined` if any of the nested objects are null or undefined.
2. **R.path from Ramda library**: This approach uses a function from the Ramda library that allows you to access nested properties of an object in a more explicit and predictable way. For example, `var aa = R.path(['b', 'c'], a);` will return the value of `a.b.c`.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Optional Chaining**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive syntax.
		+ Easier to read and write code.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than explicit approaches, since it involves a function call.
		+ May have performance issues if used excessively or with large objects.
2. **R.path from Ramda library**:
	* Pros:
		+ More predictable and explicit syntax.
		+ Can be faster than optional chaining for large objects or complex traversals.
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise and more verbose syntax.
		+ Requires importing an external library (Ramda).

**Library:**

The Ramda library is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. It provides a set of higher-order functions that can be used to manipulate data, including functions like `path` that allow you to access nested properties of objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives:**

If you prefer not to use optional chaining or Ramda's path function, you could also use other approaches for iterating over objects, such as:

* Using a traditional loop with `in` operator to iterate over object properties.
* Using the `for...in` loop with `Object.keys()` to iterate over object properties.

However, these alternatives may have performance implications or require more boilerplate code.

In summary, the benchmark is testing two different approaches for iterating over objects: Optional Chaining and R.path from Ramda library. The choice between these approaches depends on your personal preference for syntax, readability, and performance.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining vs Ramda 0.29 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional chaining vs R.path

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional chaining

R.path

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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