Benchmark: optional chaining X old spice

Tests:

old spice
const testObj = { 'a': {'b': 1, 'c': 'fuzz'} } testObj && testObj.a && testObj.a.c
optional chaining
const testObj = { 'a': {'b': 1, 'c': 'fuzz'} } testObj?.a?.c

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: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 120 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
old spice	620008192.0 Ops/sec
optional chaining	603678528.0 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 explanation of the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to accessing nested properties in an object:

1. **Old Spice**: The first approach uses the `&&` operator to access the nested properties. It checks if `testObj.a` exists, and only then attempts to access `testObj.a.c`. If either of these checks fails, the expression will return `undefined`.
2. **Optional Chaining** (`?.`): The second approach uses optional chaining to access the nested properties. It uses the nullish coalescing operator (`?.`) to safely navigate through the object's property chain.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* **Old Spice**: This approach uses the traditional `&&` operator to check for existence before accessing nested properties.
* **Optional Chaining** (`?.`): This approach uses a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to safely access nested properties without fear of `null` or `undefined` exceptions.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Old Spice**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported by older browsers and JavaScript engines.
	+ Cons: Can lead to performance issues if not used carefully (e.g., multiple consecutive checks).
* **Optional Chaining** (`?.`):
	+ Pros: Simplifies code, reduces errors, and improves performance (since it avoids the need for explicit existence checks).
	+ Cons: Requires support for ECMAScript 2020 or later.

**Library usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The syntax and behavior are built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature**

The benchmark uses a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, specifically the optional chaining operator (`?.`). This syntax was added to provide a safe way to access nested properties without fear of `null` or `undefined` exceptions.

**Benchmark preparation code and result**

The benchmark preparation code is minimal, with only an object literal defining the test data. The results are provided in JSON format, showing:

* **Browser**: The browser used for execution.
* **DevicePlatform**: The device platform used (in this case, Mobile).
* **OperatingSystem**: The operating system used (Android).
* **ExecutionsPerSecond**: The number of executions per second.

**Other alternatives**

If you prefer to use a different approach or library, here are some alternatives:

1. **Using `hasOwnProperty()`**: Instead of using the `&&` operator, you can use the `hasOwnProperty()` method to check if an object has a specific property.
2. **Using `in` operator with `hasOwnProperty()`**: You can also use the `in` operator in combination with `hasOwnProperty()` to achieve similar results.

Here's an example using `hasOwnProperty()`:
```javascript
const testObj = { 'a': {'b': 1, 'c': 'fuzz'} };
if (testObj.hasOwnProperty('a') && testObj.a.hasOwnProperty('c')) {
  console.log(testObj.a.c);
}
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may have slightly different performance characteristics compared to the optional chaining operator.

Related benchmarks:

optional chaining X 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):