Benchmark: optional chaining versus old spice

Tests:

old spice
const testObject = { 'a' : 1, 'b' : 2, 'c': 3 } testObject && testObject.b
optional chaining
const testObject = { 'a' : 1, 'b' : 2, 'c': 3 } testObject?.b

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
old spice
optional chaining

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/85.0.4183.83 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 85 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
old spice	1373083392.0 Ops/sec
optional chaining	1372659840.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for a benchmarking tool called MeasureThat.net. Each test case compares the execution performance of two different approaches: `old spice` and `optional chaining`.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Old Spice**: This approach uses the traditional null-conditional operator (`&&`) to access the `b` property of an object.
```javascript
const testObject = { 'a' : 1, 'b' : 2, 'c': 3 };
testObject && testObject.b;
```
2. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access the `b` property of an object.
```javascript
const testObject = { 'a' : 1, 'b' : 2, 'c': 3 };
testObject?.b;
```

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Old Spice**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported in older browsers (IE 9+, Firefox 4+, etc.)
		+ Easy to understand and implement
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to null pointer exceptions if the object is null or undefined
		+ Less efficient than optional chaining for accessing nested properties
2. **Optional Chaining**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient and safe when working with nested properties
		+ Reduces the risk of null pointer exceptions
	* Cons:
		+ Less widely supported in older browsers (IE 9+, Firefox 4+, etc.)
		+ May require additional processing if the object is null or undefined

**Library usage:**

None of the test cases use any external libraries. The examples provided demonstrate a basic understanding of how to use the `&&` and `?.` operators.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these examples. They rely solely on standard JavaScript operators and syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are some alternatives:

1. **Null coalescing operator (`??`)**: This operator returns the first operand if it's not null or undefined; otherwise, it returns the second operand.
```javascript
const testObject = { 'a' : 1, 'b' : 2, 'c': 3 };
testObject ?? {};
```
2. **Optional chaining with bracket notation (`?.[]`)**: This syntax allows you to access nested properties while providing a safe fallback value if the property doesn't exist.
```javascript
const testObject = { 'a' : 1, 'b' : 2, 'c': 3 };
testObject?.['b'];
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and are not as widely supported as optional chaining.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the basics of JavaScript microbenchmarks and the differences between old spice and optional chaining!

Related benchmarks:

optional chaining versus old spice (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: old spice vs optional chaining

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

old spice

optional chaining

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):