Benchmark: frault - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
obj.a?.b?.c?.d
old
if (obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d) { obj.a.b.c.d }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
old

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**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question is measuring the performance difference between two approaches: Optional Chaining (`?.`) and traditional conditional checks (`&& && &&`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up a test object `obj` with nested properties:
```javascript
var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}};
```
This creates a deep object structure with the following hierarchy:
```json
{
  "a": {
    "b": {
      "c": {
        "d": 1
      }
    }
  }
}
```
**Html Preparation Code**

The html preparation code is empty, indicating that no HTML elements are involved in this benchmark.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

### Optional Chaining (`?.`)

This test case uses the new Optional Chaining operator (`?.`) to access the `d` property of the nested object. The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
obj.a?.b?.c?.d
```
This expression will return `undefined` if any of the intermediate properties are null or undefined, without throwing an error.

### Traditional Conditional Checks (`&& && &&`)

The second test case uses traditional conditional checks to access the `d` property. The benchmark definition is:
```javascript
if (obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d) {
  obj.a.b.c.d
}
```
This expression will return `undefined` if any of the intermediate properties are null or undefined, and may throw an error.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**:
	+ Pros: Safe, concise, and expressive.
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript.
* **Traditional Conditional Checks (`&& && &&`)**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported, easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Longer and more verbose, may throw errors if intermediate properties are null or undefined.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark does not use any external libraries, except for the built-in `Object` and `Array` types.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

Optional Chaining (`?.`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12) as a new operator. It's designed to provide a more concise way of accessing nested properties while ensuring safety and predictability.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few:

* **Nullish Coalescing (`??`)**: Another new operator introduced in ES12, which returns the first operand if it's not null or undefined, and the second operand otherwise.
* **Optional Arrays (`?[]`)**: Introduced in ES2020, this syntax allows for optional arrays that can be used as array literals.

Keep in mind that these features may have varying levels of support across different browsers and versions of JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

frault (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs old

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

old

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):