Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash aaaaa

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: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.120 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 77 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	4419327.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	2864793.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining what is tested on the provided JSON that represents the benchmark.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for accessing nested properties in an object:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the nullish coalescing operator (`??`) to access nested properties in a safe and efficient manner.
2. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: This approach uses Lodash's utility function to safely navigate through nested objects.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

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

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Optional Chaining**

Pros:

* Efficient and lightweight
* Supports nullish coalescing, which can improve performance in certain scenarios
* Easy to use and intuitive syntax

Cons:

* May not be as readable or maintainable for complex nested objects
* Does not provide explicit control over error handling

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

Pros:

* Provides explicit control over error handling (e.g., returning a default value if the path does not exist)
* Supports more advanced navigation patterns (e.g., using multiple paths and defaults)

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of function calls
* Requires additional dependency on Lodash

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and object traversal. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` method is used to safely navigate through nested objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is already available in modern browsers (ECMAScript 2015+).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, some options include:

* Using the `in` operator and explicit checks to access nested properties
* Utilizing a recursive function to traverse the object graph
* Leveraging the `JSON.parse()` method with a custom JSON parser to parse nested objects

However, these alternatives may be less efficient or more verbose than Optional Chaining and Lodash's `_.get()` method.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash aaaaa (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):