Benchmark: babel optional chaining vs lodash get

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

optional chaining
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
var a = _.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

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two ways to access nested properties of an object in JavaScript:

1. **Optional Chaining (Babel)**: This method uses the `?.` operator to safely navigate through an object's properties, avoiding null pointer exceptions.
2. **Lodash `get()` function**: A utility function from the Lodash library that allows you to dynamically access nested properties of an object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Babel's optional chaining (`obj?.a?.b?.c?.d`)
* Lodash's `get()` function (`_.get(obj, 'a.b.c.d')`)

**Pros and Cons**

### Optional Chaining (Babel)

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Better performance due to optimized compiler-generated code

Cons:

* Requires modern JavaScript versions (ECMAScript 2020+)
* May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support the `?.` operator

### Lodash `get()` function

Pros:

* Widely supported and compatible with most JavaScript versions
* Provides a more explicit way of accessing nested properties, making it easier to understand the intent of the code

Cons:

* Less concise and may require more semicolons or whitespace
* May incur additional overhead due to the function call

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Code readability: If you prioritize conciseness and readability, optional chaining might be a better choice.
* Compatibility: If you need to support older browsers or environments, Lodash's `get()` function might be a safer option.

**Library Used (Lodash)**

The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.17.20, which is an older version of the library that was widely used at the time of writing. This version still provides many of the same benefits and features as newer versions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that's not supported by most modern browsers. The `?.` operator, which is the core of optional chaining, has been a part of ECMAScript since 2020, so it should be widely supported.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash's `get()` function, consider using other utility libraries like:

* **Underscore.js**: A popular alternative to Lodash that provides similar functionality.
* **Immer.js**: A library that provides a more functional programming style for updating and manipulating objects.

For optional chaining, you can use the new `?.` operator in modern JavaScript versions (ECMAScript 2020+), or explore other libraries like **ES7-Edge**, which aims to provide compatibility with older browsers while still benefiting from newer language features.

Related benchmarks:

babel optional chaining vs lodash get (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: optional chaining vs lodash get

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

optional chaining

lodash get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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