Benchmark: es6 destructuring vs lodash _.get asjfoasijdfio

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var cell = {
   data: {
     state: 'hello' 
   }
}

Tests:

lodash get
_.get(cell, 'data.state')
native
cell && cell.data && cell.data.state;

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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 76 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash get	2688915.2 Ops/sec
native	4701546.5 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 benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to access nested data in an object:

1. Using Lodash _.get
2. Using native JavaScript (without any library)

**Options Compared:**

* Lodash _.get:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a standardized way to access nested data, making code more readable and maintainable.
		- Handles null and undefined values by default.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an extra dependency, increasing the size of the bundle.
		- May introduce performance overhead due to its additional complexity.
* Native JavaScript (without any library):
	+ Pros:
		- Eliminates the need for an external library, reducing bundle size and potential performance overhead.
		- Can be more efficient since it's a built-in feature.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual handling of null and undefined values, which can lead to code duplication and maintenance issues.

**Other Considerations:**

* Code readability and maintainability: Lodash _.get is often preferred for its readability and expressiveness, especially when dealing with complex nested data structures. However, using native JavaScript might result in more verbose code that's harder to read.
* Performance: The benchmark results suggest that the native JavaScript approach performs better than Lodash _.get, at least on this specific test case.

**Library (Lodash) Purpose:**
Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including _.get. Its purpose is to simplify code and make it more expressive by providing standardized ways to perform common tasks, such as array manipulation, object access, and more.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None):**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark that's not widely supported.

**Alternative Approaches:**

* Instead of using _.get from Lodash, you could use other methods to access nested data, such as:
	+ Using bracket notation (`cell['data']['state']`)
	+ Creating a recursive function to access the data
	+ Using a library like Moment.js for handling complex date objects (not applicable in this case)
* Alternative ways to implement native JavaScript might include:
	+ Using optional chaining (`?.`) with modern browsers that support it (Chrome 76 and above)
	+ Implementing manual null and undefined checks using the OR operator (`||`)

Related benchmarks:

es6 destructuring vs lodash _.get asjfoasijdfio (version: 0)

compare performance of _.get to native

Comparing performance of: lodash get vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

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 2 months ago):