Benchmark: Optional Chaining vs lodash _.get

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var goodObj = {
  a: {
    b: {
      c: 5
    }
  }
};
var badObj = {
  x: {
    y: {
      z: 5
    }
  }
};

Tests:

Optional Chaining
goodObj?.a?.b?.c || 0 badObj?.a?.b?.c || 0
_.get
_.get(goodObj, 'a.b.c', 0); _.get(badObj, 'a.b.c', 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
_.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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two ways to access nested properties in JavaScript objects: optional chaining (using the `?.` operator) and using the `_get` function from the Lodash library.

**Options Being Compared**

1. **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**: This is a modern JavaScript feature that allows you to access nested properties in an object without throwing a TypeError if any of the properties are missing.
2. **Lodash's _get() function**: This function takes three arguments: the object, a string representing the path to the desired property, and a default value to return if the property is not found.

**Pros and Cons**

### Optional Chaining (`?.`)

Pros:

* More concise and expressive way to access nested properties
* Less chance of causing errors due to missing properties
* Part of the modern JavaScript standard (ECMAScript 2020+)

Cons:

* Not supported in older browsers or versions of Internet Explorer
* May cause performance issues if used excessively

### Lodash's _get() function

Pros:

* More flexible, as it allows you to specify a default value and even a custom callback function
* Works across different browsers and versions
* Part of the Lodash library, which is widely used in JavaScript development

Cons:

* Requires an additional library import (Lodash)
* May be overkill for simple use cases
* Less concise than optional chaining

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object manipulation, and more. The `_get` function is part of Lodash's `MoreUtils` module, which allows you to safely access nested properties in objects.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The benchmark uses the modern JavaScript feature called "optional chaining" (`?.`). This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 and is supported by most modern browsers. However, older browsers or versions of Internet Explorer may not support this feature.

If you're using an older browser, you can transpile the code to use a polyfill or fall back to Lodash's `_get` function.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects include:

* Using dot notation (`obj.prop1.prop2`) and handling errors manually
* Using bracket notation (`obj['prop1']` and `obj['prop2']`)
* Using a recursive function to traverse the object graph

However, these approaches can be less concise and more error-prone than optional chaining or Lodash's `_get` function.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.13.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	10175643.0 Ops/sec
_.get	1509390.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining vs lodash _.get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs _.get

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

_.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):