Benchmark: lodash get vs native js (with .?)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-WFN04846sdKMIP5LKNphMaWzU7YpMyCU245etK3g/2ARYbPK9Ub18eG+ljU96qKRCWh+quCY7yefSmlkQw1ANQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

object = {
  item: {
    subitem: {
      id: 1
    }
  }
}

Tests:

lodash get
_.get(object, 'item.subitem.id');
native js (.?)
object?.item?.subitem?.id

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash get
native js (.?)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to accessing nested properties in an object: Lodash's `_.get()` method and the native JavaScript optional chaining operator (`?.`).

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: This is a utility function from the popular JavaScript library Lodash that allows you to safely navigate through nested properties in an object.
2. **Native JavaScript optional chaining operator (`?.`)**: This is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to access nested properties without throwing an error if any of the intermediate steps are null or undefined.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `_.get()` method**

Pros:

* Provides a safe and explicit way to navigate through nested properties.
* Can handle errors and exceptions elegantly.
* Part of a widely used and well-maintained library.

Cons:

* Adds extra weight to the application due to the inclusion of the Lodash library.
* May introduce additional overhead compared to the native JavaScript approach.

**Native JavaScript optional chaining operator (`?.`)**

Pros:

* Native implementation, which means it doesn't add extra weight to the application.
* Fast and efficient, as it's implemented in the browser's engine.
* Becomes a standard feature in modern JavaScript, making code more readable and maintainable.

Cons:

* Only available in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2020 or later.
* May require additional setup or configuration for older browsers.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object creation, and more. The `_.get()` method is one of its many useful helpers for working with objects.

**Test Case Explanation**

The two test cases are identical in terms of the code being executed:

```javascript
object?.item?.subitem?.id
```

The only difference between the two approaches is how they handle null or undefined intermediate steps. Lodash's `_.get()` method will return `undefined` if any step is null or undefined, while the native JavaScript optional chaining operator (`?.`) will simply short-circuit and return `undefined`.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-offs between safety, readability, and performance. If you're working in a modern browser that supports ECMAScript 2020 or later, the native JavaScript approach is likely a good choice for its speed and brevity. However, if you need to support older browsers or prefer a more explicit and safe way of navigating through nested properties, Lodash's `_.get()` method might be a better fit.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternative approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript include:

* Using bracket notation (`object['item.subitem.id']`)
* Using the dot notation (`object.item.subitem.id`)
* Using a recursive function to traverse the object
* Using a library like jQuery or another utility library

Each of these approaches has its own pros and cons, which are worth considering depending on your specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash get	5664484.0 Ops/sec
native js (.?)	17351244.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash get vs native js (with .?) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash get vs native js (.?)

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash get

native js (.?)

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):