Benchmark: Optional chaining vs Empty method

Script Preparation code:

var objA = {};
var objB = { a() { } };

Tests:

Optional Chaining
objA.a?.();
Empty method
objB.a();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
Empty method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provided in JSON format specifies two different approaches for accessing a method on an object:

1.  **Optional Chaining (`objA.a?.();`)**: This syntax allows you to access a property or method on an object without explicitly checking if the property exists or not. If the property does not exist, it will return `undefined` instead of throwing an error.
2.  **Empty Method (`objB.a();`)**: This approach calls a method directly on the object without any checks.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provides two objects:

*   `var objA = {};`: An empty object that is used to test optional chaining.
*   `var objB = { a() { } };`: An object with an empty method (`a`) that is used to test the direct call approach.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark includes two test cases, each testing one of the approaches:

1.  **Optional Chaining**: The benchmark calls the `?.()` syntax on `objA` to access its `a` property.
2.  **Empty Method**: The benchmark calls the `a()` method directly on `objB`.

**Library and Syntax**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it appears to be using modern JavaScript features like optional chaining (`?.`) and template literals.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1.  **Optional Chaining (`.?.()`)**
    *   Pros:
        *   Reduces errors by avoiding null or undefined references.
        *   Simplifies code for accessing nested properties or methods.
    *   Cons:
        *   May introduce additional overhead due to the optional chaining syntax.
2.  **Empty Method (`objB.a();`)**

*   Pros:
        *   Direct and straightforward approach, with no additional overhead.
    *   Cons:
        *   May result in errors if the method does not exist or is not defined.

**Other Considerations**

1.  **Error Handling**: The benchmark definition does not explicitly handle errors that may occur during execution (e.g., property not found or undefined reference).
2.  **Performance Overhead**: The benchmark may incur additional overhead due to the optional chaining syntax, which could impact performance in certain scenarios.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for accessing methods on objects include:

1.  **Using `in` operator**: `objA.a in objA ? objA.a() : null;`
2.  **Using `hasOwnProperty()`**: `objA.hasOwnProperty('a') ? objA.a() : null;`

However, these alternatives may not provide the same level of readability or error handling as optional chaining.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark definition uses the `.?.()` syntax for optional chaining and template literals. These features are part of modern JavaScript and were introduced in ECMAScript 2020.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	3843772.5 Ops/sec
Empty method	3980983.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining vs Empty method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Empty method

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Empty method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):