Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (with obj in the optional chain test)

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

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/105.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 105 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	4232619.5 Ops/sec
Lodash	2579456.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches to access nested properties in an object: `Optional Chaining` (using the `?.` syntax) versus using the `_get` method from the Lodash library.

**What's Being Tested?**

The test cases are designed to measure the execution time of accessing nested properties in the following scenarios:

1. Accessing a non-existent property (`obj.a == null ? undefined : ...`)
2. Accessing an existing property (`obj.a.b == null ? undefined : ...`)

The two approaches being compared are:

**Option 1: Optional Chaining**

Using the `?.` syntax to access nested properties, like this:
```javascript
const result = obj.a?.b?.c?.d;
```
This approach checks if each property exists before attempting to access it. If any of the properties do not exist, the expression will return `undefined`.

**Option 2: Lodash _.get**

Using the `_get` method from the Lodash library to access nested properties, like this:
```javascript
const result = _.get(obj, "a.b.c.d");
```
This approach takes an object and a string representing the property path as arguments. It will return `undefined` if any of the properties in the path do not exist.

**Pros and Cons**

**Optional Chaining:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Reduces errors caused by null pointer exceptions

Cons:

* May be slower due to the extra checks
* Only works with modern JavaScript engines that support optional chaining (not older browsers)

**Lodash _.get:**

Pros:

* Works in all browsers, including older ones
* Can be more flexible when working with complex property paths

Cons:

* More verbose code
* Requires the Lodash library to be included

**Library: Lodash**

The `_get` method is part of the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript. The purpose of Lodash is to provide a set of helper functions that make common programming tasks easier.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark, so we won't delve into any special features or syntaxes.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties include:

* Using `in` operator and conditional statements
* Using a loop to access each property in the path
* Using a recursive function to traverse the object

However, these approaches may be less efficient and more error-prone than the two methods being compared.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (with obj in the optional chain test) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 5 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 2 months ago):