Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
a == null ? undefined : a.b == null ? undefined : a.b.c == null ? undefined : a.b.c.d
Lodash
_.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

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Description**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to access nested properties in an object: Optional Chaining (ECMAScript 2020) and Lodash's `_.get()` function.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Optional Chaining**: This is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to access nested properties of an object in a more concise and expressive way. For example:
```javascript
const obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
const result = obj.a?.b?.c?.d; // or obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d;
```
In this benchmark, the script is generated to access `obj.a.b.c.d` using Optional Chaining.
2. **Lodash's _.get() function**: This is a utility function provided by Lodash that allows you to access nested properties of an object in a more flexible way. For example:
```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');
const obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
const result = _.get(obj, 'a.b.c.d');
```
In this benchmark, the script is generated to access `obj.a.b.c.d` using Lodash's `_.get()` function.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Optional Chaining**:
	* Pros: concise and expressive syntax, easy to read and write.
	* Cons: may not be compatible with older browsers or environments that don't support ECMAScript 2020.
2. **Lodash's _.get() function**:
	* Pros: widely supported by most JavaScript libraries and frameworks, flexible syntax allows for more control over the access process.
	* Cons: may be less concise than Optional Chaining, and requires an additional dependency (Lodash).

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-offs between conciseness, readability, and compatibility. If you need to support older browsers or environments that don't support ECMAScript 2020, Lodash's `_.get()` function might be a better choice.

Additionally, if you're working on a project where code readability and maintainability are crucial, Optional Chaining might be the better option due to its concise and expressive syntax.

**Library Usage**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides various utility functions for tasks like string manipulation, array processing, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` function is used to access nested properties of an object.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided JSON, but it's worth noting that Optional Chaining (ECMAScript 2020) is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, and not all browsers or environments support it yet.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.129 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	0.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	887263.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

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):