Benchmark: OptionalChaining loose false test123

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
var badObj = {}

Tests:

Optional Chaining
(obj.a === null || obj.a === void 0 ? void 0 : obj.a.b === null || obj.a.b === void 0 ? void 0 : obj.a.b.c === null || obj.a.b.c === void 0 ? void 0 : obj.a.b.c.d) || 2 (badObj.a === null || badObj.a === void 0 ? void 0 : badObj.a.b === null || badObj.a.b === void 0 ? void 0 : badObj.a.b.c === null || badObj.a.b.c === void 0 ? void 0 : badObj.a.b.c.d) || 2
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)

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

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to test how fast JavaScript can navigate through nested objects using two approaches: Optional Chaining (also known as nullish coalescing) and Lodash's `_get` function.

**Optional Chaining**

This approach uses a ternary expression with nullish coalescing operators (`??`) to safely access nested properties. The syntax is:

```javascript
(obj.a === null || obj.a === void 0 ? void 0 : obj.a.b === null || obj.a.b === void 0 ? void 0 : obj.a.b.c === null || obj.a.b.c === void 0 ? void 0 : obj.a.b.c.d) || 2
```

Here's what's happening:

1. If `obj.a` is not null or undefined, the expression tries to access `obj.a.b`.
2. If `obj.a.b` is not null or undefined, the expression tries to access `obj.a.b.c`.
3. If `obj.a.b.c` is not null or undefined, the expression tries to access `obj.a.b.c.d`.
4. If any of these accesses fail (i.e., return null or undefined), the expression returns 2.

This approach allows for a safer and more readable way to handle nested objects without relying on explicit checks for null or undefined values.

**Lodash's `_get` function**

The Lodash library provides an `_get` function that allows you to access nested properties in a similar way:

```javascript
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2)
```

This function takes three arguments: the object to search (`obj`), the path to follow (`"a.b.c.d"`), and a default value to return if any part of the path is null or undefined.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their advantages:

* **Optional Chaining**: Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive syntax.
	+ Can be more readable for complex nested objects.
	+ Avoids explicit checks for null or undefined values.
*   Cons:
    * May not work as expected in older browsers or environments that don't support nullish coalescing operators (`??`).
    * Requires modern JavaScript features to work properly.

Lodash's `_get` function:

Pros:

* Works across a wider range of browsers and environments, including older ones.
* Provides a more explicit and controlled way to access nested properties.
* Allows for easy customization with default values.

Cons:

* May be less concise or expressive than Optional Chaining syntax.
* Requires importing the Lodash library and its `_get` function.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, object manipulation, and string handling. The `_get` function is one of its most useful tools for accessing nested properties in objects.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between Optional Chaining and Lodash's `_get` function, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If you're working with large datasets or need to optimize for speed, Optional Chaining might be a better choice due to its concise syntax and potential performance benefits.
* Readability: If you prefer a more explicit and readable way of accessing nested properties, Lodash's `_get` function might be a better fit.
* Browser support: If you need to support older browsers or environments, Lodash's `_get` function can provide a safer and more reliable solution.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties in JavaScript include:

* Using explicit checks with `||` and `&&`: `obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d`
* Using the `in` operator: `if ("a" in obj) { ... } && if ("b" in obj["a"]) { ... } && if ("c" in obj["a"]["b"]) { ... } && if ("d" in obj["a"]["b"]["c"]) { ... }`
* Using a recursive function to traverse the object: `function traverse(obj, path) { if (path in obj) return obj[path]; else return null; }`

These approaches can be more verbose and less efficient than Optional Chaining or Lodash's `_get` function but may still be suitable for specific use cases.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.122 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.14.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	2142380.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	1308199.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

OptionalChaining loose false test123 (version: 0)

test123

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 4 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 one month ago):