Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.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 28 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 is defined using two different approaches:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses a syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7) that allows for more concise object access and null checks. The syntax `obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d` is equivalent to the traditional null-conditional operator approach.
2. **Lodash _.get()**: This approach uses a function from the Lodash library, which provides a more explicit and flexible way of accessing nested object properties.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches in terms of execution speed and number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Optional Chaining**:
	+ Pros: More concise and readable syntax, better suited for modern JavaScript use cases.
	+ Cons: May not be as widely supported or optimized by browsers, potentially slower due to the new syntax.
* **Lodash _.get()**:
	+ Pros: More explicit and flexible way of accessing nested object properties, potentially more efficient due to the library's optimization.
	+ Cons: Requires an external library import, may add unnecessary overhead.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array manipulation, and object access. The _.get() function is specifically designed for accessing nested properties in objects, making it a convenient option for this benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the ECMAScript 2017 (ES7) syntax for optional chaining (`obj.a == null ? undefined : ...`). This feature was introduced to provide a more concise way of handling null and undefined values when accessing object properties. While it's not widely supported, it has become increasingly common in modern JavaScript development.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other approaches that could be used instead of optional chaining and Lodash _.get():

* **Traditional null-conditional operator approach**: This would involve using the traditional syntax for null checks and nested property access, which is more verbose but widely supported.
* **Array.prototype.at() method**: In some cases, accessing properties like `obj.a.b.c.d` could be achieved using the Array.prototype.at() method, which provides a more efficient way of accessing array elements.

However, these alternatives may not be as concise or readable as the optional chaining and Lodash _.get() approaches, and may require additional syntax or library imports.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/65.0.3325.181 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 65 on Mac OS X 10.13.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	2357769.8 Ops/sec
Lodash	1503890.4 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 28 days ago):