Benchmark: optional chaining chrome vs lodash get

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}

Tests:

optional chaining
var a = obj?.a?.b?.c?.d
lodash get
var a = _.get(obj, "a.b.c.d")

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
optional chaining
lodash get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
optional chaining	13262487.0 Ops/sec
lodash get	2147394.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to perform optional chaining in JavaScript:

1. **Optional Chaining (?.)**: This is a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to access nested properties of an object without throwing an error if the property does not exist.
2. **Lodash Get**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a utility function `_.get()` for safely accessing nested properties of an object.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Optional Chaining (?.)**: This approach uses the new syntax to access the nested property.
2. **Lodash Get**: This approach uses the `_.get()` function from Lodash to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Optional Chaining (?.)**

Pros:

* More concise and expressive code
* Built-in to JavaScript, so no additional library is required
* Easier to read and write

Cons:

* Not yet widely supported by older browsers or environments
* May require additional setup or configuration in some cases

**Lodash Get**

Pros:

* Widely supported by most browsers and environments
* No additional setup or configuration required
* Can be used with other libraries or frameworks that support Lodash

Cons:

* More verbose code compared to optional chaining
* Requires an additional library (Lodash) to be included in the project

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and more. The `_.get()` function is specifically designed to safely access nested properties of an object, handling cases where the property does not exist.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that require additional explanation.

**Other alternatives**

If you prefer not to use optional chaining, other alternatives for accessing nested properties include:

* Using dot notation with default values (e.g., `var a = obj && obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d`)
* Using the `in` operator and checking for existence before accessing the property (e.g., `if ('a' in obj) if ('b' in obj.a) if ('c' in obj.a.b) if ('d' in obj.a.b.c) var a = obj.a.b.c.d`)
* Using a library like jQuery or other DOM manipulation libraries that provide similar functionality.

However, these alternatives are generally less concise and expressive than optional chaining, and may require additional setup or configuration.

Related benchmarks:

optional chaining chrome vs lodash get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: optional chaining vs lodash get

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

optional chaining

lodash get

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):