Benchmark: Lodash get Vs. Optional Chaining (v2)

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
var _obj$a, _obj$a$b, _obj$a$b$c; var foo = obj === null || obj === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a = obj.a) === null || _obj$a === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a$b = _obj$a.b) === null || _obj$a$b === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a$b$c = _obj$a$b.c) === null || _obj$a$b$c === void 0 ? void 0 : _obj$a$b$c.d;
Lodash Get
const bar = _.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 Get

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: Optional Chaining (introduced in ECMAScript 2020) and Lodash's `get()` function.

**Optional Chaining**

This approach uses the new Optional Chaining operator (`?.`) to access nested properties of an object. In JavaScript, it allows you to avoid null or undefined checks by chaining method calls together with the optional chaining operator. For example:
```javascript
const obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
console.log(obj.a.b.c.d); // outputs 1

const foo = obj === null || obj === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a = obj.a) === null || _obj$a === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a$b = _obj$a.b) === null || _obj$a$b === void 0 ? void 0 : (_obj$a$b$c = _obj$a$b.c) === null || _obj$a$b$c === void 0 ? void 0 : _obj$a$b$c.d;
console.log(foo); // outputs 1
```
**Lodash's `get()` function**

Lodash's `get()` function is a utility function that allows you to safely access nested properties of an object. It takes three arguments: the object, a key path (string), and a default value.

For example:
```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');
const obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
console.log(_.get(obj, 'a.b.c.d')); // outputs 1

const bar = _.get(obj, 'a.b.c.d', undefined);
console.log(bar); // outputs undefined
```
**Pros and Cons**

**Optional Chaining**

* Pros:
	+ More concise and readable code
	+ Avoids null or undefined checks
	+ Can improve performance by reducing the number of property accesses
* Cons:
	+ Requires ECMAScript 2020 support (not supported in older browsers)
	+ May not work as expected if object is not initialized

**Lodash's `get()` function**

* Pros:
	+ Wide browser support ( works in most modern browsers and Node.js versions)
	+ Provides a default value for cases where the property access fails
* Cons:
	+ More verbose code
	+ Requires an additional library dependency

**Other Considerations**

* In terms of performance, both approaches have their own trade-offs. Optional Chaining can be faster because it avoids null or undefined checks, but it may require more computational resources to evaluate nested properties. Lodash's `get()` function provides a safe way to access nested properties while providing a default value in case the property access fails.
* In terms of readability and conciseness, Optional Chaining is generally considered more readable because it avoids the need for explicit null or undefined checks.

**Alternatives**

* If you need to support older browsers that don't have ECMAScript 2020 support, Lodash's `get()` function can be a safe alternative.
* If you're using a library like React or Angular, you may already have access to Optional Chaining through their built-in features (e.g., React's optional chaining in v16.13.1 and later).

In summary, the benchmark is comparing two approaches: Optional Chaining (introduced in ECMAScript 2020) and Lodash's `get()` function. While Optional Chaining provides a more concise and readable way to access nested properties, it requires support for ECMAScript 2020. Lodash's `get()` function provides a safer alternative that works widely across browsers and Node.js versions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.14.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	15592392.0 Ops/sec
Lodash Get	2594122.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash get Vs. Optional Chaining (v2) (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash Get

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash Get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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