Benchmark: Lodash.get vs native [Krosnoz]

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:

var person = {
    name: 'Krosnoz',
    profil: 'Streamer',
    foo: {
        bar: "baz"
    }
};

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(person, 'foo.bar');
Native
person?.foo?.bar;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to access a nested property of an object: using Lodash's `_.get()` method and accessing it directly using optional chaining (`?.`). The test cases are designed to measure the performance difference between these two methods on modern web browsers.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that provides a way to access nested properties of objects in a flexible and safe manner.
2. **Direct Access using Optional Chaining (`?.`)**: This syntax allows you to access nested properties of objects without explicitly specifying their names.

**Pros and Cons**

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

Pros:

* More explicit and predictable way of accessing nested properties
* Provides a safety net against errors, such as null or undefined values
* Well-maintained and widely used library

Cons:

* Adds an extra layer of complexity due to the function call
* Requires loading an additional dependency (the Lodash library)

**Direct Access using Optional Chaining (`?.`)**

Pros:

* Simplifies code by eliminating the need for a separate function or library
* More concise and readable syntax

Cons:

* May lead to errors if not used carefully, as it relies on the object being accessed actually having the nested property
* Not all browsers support optional chaining (it was introduced in ECMAScript 2020)

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these two approaches, consider the trade-off between readability, maintainability, and performance. If you need a more explicit and predictable way of accessing nested properties, Lodash's `_.get()` method might be the better choice. However, if you prioritize simplicity and concise code, direct access using optional chaining (`?.`) could be a good option.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as string manipulation, array operations, and object manipulation. The `_.get()` method is one of its most useful functions, allowing you to access nested properties of objects in a flexible and safe manner.

**Special JS Feature: Optional Chaining (`?.`)**

Optional chaining was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 as a new syntax feature that allows you to access nested properties of objects without explicitly specifying their names. This feature provides a concise way to handle null or undefined values, making it easier to write more robust and readable code.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to Lodash's `_.get()` method include:

* Using bracket notation (`person.foo.bar` instead of `_._get(person, 'foo.bar')`)
* Using `in` operator to access nested properties
* Implementing your own custom solution using loops or recursive functions

These alternative approaches can be more performance-intensive and less readable than Lodash's `_.get()` method, but they provide a way to avoid loading an additional dependency.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get	2832368.0 Ops/sec
Native	16271992.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs native [Krosnoz] (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs Native

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):