Benchmark: Optional chaining vs lodash get2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

optional
obj?.a?.b?.c?.d || 2
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
optional
Lodash

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.

I'll break down the benchmark for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: optional chaining in JavaScript and the `_.get()` function from the Lodash library.

**Optional Chaining vs. Lodash `_.get()`: What's Being Tested?**

In the benchmark, we're comparing how fast each approach can evaluate a nested property path on an object.

The first test case uses optional chaining (`?.`) to access `obj.d`, which returns `undefined` if any of the intermediate properties (`a`, `b`, or `c`) are missing. The second test case uses Lodash's `_.get()` function, which also accesses `obj.d`.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**: This is a built-in JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It allows you to safely navigate nested properties on an object without throwing errors if any intermediate property is missing.
2. **Lodash `_.get()` Function**: This function takes two arguments: the first is the object, and the second is a string representing the path to access.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Optional Chaining (`?.`)**

Pros:

* Fast and lightweight
* Built-in JavaScript feature
* No additional dependencies or libraries required
* Expressive syntax for accessing nested properties

Cons:

* Only works in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2020 (Chrome 87+)
* May not be supported by older browsers or environments

**Lodash `_.get()` Function**

Pros:

* More mature and widely supported library
* Works with a broader range of browsers and environments
* Can handle more complex path expressions

Cons:

* Additional dependency required (Lodash library)
* Less expressive syntax than optional chaining
* Slower performance due to the extra indirection (function call)

**Library Used: Lodash**

The `_.get()` function is part of the Lodash library, which provides a set of utility functions for JavaScript development. The library is widely used and supported in modern web development.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: Optional Chaining (`?.`)**

Optional chaining was introduced as a built-in feature in ECMAScript 2020. It allows you to safely navigate nested properties on an object without throwing errors if any intermediate property is missing. This feature is supported by most modern browsers, including Chrome 87 and later.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you don't have access to Lodash or prefer not to use it, you can also implement the `_.get()` function yourself using a recursive approach:

```javascript
function _get(obj, path) {
  const parts = path.split('.');
  for (const part of parts) {
    if (!obj || typeof obj[part] !== 'object') return null;
    obj = obj[part];
  }
  return obj;
}
```

Alternatively, you can use a simple loop to access the nested properties:

```javascript
function _get(obj, path) {
  const parts = path.split('.');
  let result = obj;
  for (const part of parts) {
    if (!result || typeof result[part] !== 'object') return null;
    result = result[part];
  }
  return result;
}
```

These approaches require more manual implementation and may not be as efficient as using Lodash's `_.get()` function or optional chaining.

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining vs lodash get2 (version: 0)

Some

Comparing performance of: optional vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

optional

Lodash

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):