Benchmark: Optional chaining vs lodash get3

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: Optional Chaining (`obj.a.b.c?.d`) and Lodash's `_.get()` function.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This is a JavaScript syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12) that allows accessing nested properties with an optional null or undefined check. It does not throw errors when the nested property is missing.
2. **Lodash's `_.get()` function**: Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions, including `_.get()`, which achieves similar functionality to Optional Chaining.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Optional Chaining**:
	* Pros: Concise syntax, faster execution time due to avoiding unnecessary property lookups.
	* Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support ES12 features.
2. **Lodash's `_.get()` function**:
	* Pros: Wide browser support, provides a standardized way to achieve nested property access with default values.
	* Cons: Additional library dependency, potentially slower execution time due to the extra lookup.

**Library and purpose:**

The library used in this benchmark is Lodash. Its purpose is to provide utility functions that can be used across various JavaScript applications.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives:**

Alternative approaches for nested property access include:

1. **Bracket notation**: `obj["a"]["b"]["c"]["d"]`
2. **Loose bracket notation**: `obj["a.b.c.d"]` (Note: This is not as concise as Optional Chaining or Lodash's `_.get()` function.)
3. **Dynamic property lookup**: Using the `in` operator to check for existence and then accessing the property.

These alternatives may have different performance characteristics, trade-offs, and browser support depending on their implementation.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided Script Preparation Code sets up two objects:

* `obj`: a nested object with properties `a`, `b`, `c`, and `d`.
* `badObj`: an empty object to be used for testing errors in older browsers.

The HTML Preparation Code includes the Lodash library, which is required for the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining vs lodash get3 (version: 0)

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):