Benchmark: ?. versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
obj?.a?.b?.c?.d ?? 2 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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional Chaining	252547888.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	10690506.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures two approaches to access nested properties in JavaScript objects: optional chaining (`?.`) and using a library like Lodash (`_.get()`).

**Optional Chaining (?.)**

* The `?.` syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 as a part of the Object proposal.
* It allows you to safely navigate through an object's property chain, avoiding null pointer exceptions.
* If any step in the chain is null or undefined, the expression will return undefined instead of throwing an error.

Pros:

1. Concise and expressive syntax for accessing nested properties.
2. Reduces the chance of null pointer exceptions, making code more reliable.
3. Can be used with existing function calls (e.g., `myObject?.someMethod()`).

Cons:

1. May have performance implications due to the additional checks performed by the interpreter.
2. Not all browsers support this syntax yet.

**Lodash (.get())**

* Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for working with data structures, including object traversal.
* The `_.get()` function allows you to safely access nested properties in an object, similar to optional chaining.
* It also returns undefined if any step in the chain is null or undefined.

Pros:

1. Well-established and widely supported by browsers (not dependent on ECMAScript features).
2. Provides a more explicit way of accessing nested properties, which can improve code readability.
3. Works with existing Lodash installations, making it a familiar choice for developers already using the library.

Cons:

1. Adds additional overhead due to the library's functionality and potential function calls.
2. May require an extra dependency in your project.

**Library (Lodash) Purpose**

The purpose of Lodash is to provide a collection of reusable functions that make working with data structures, such as arrays, objects, and events, easier and more efficient.

**Browser-Specific Considerations**

For the provided benchmark result, it's worth noting that Chrome 90 appears twice with different `ExecutionsPerSecond` values. This might indicate:

1. Different test environments or configurations (e.g., different sandboxing modes).
2. Browser-specific optimizations or cache effects.
3. Potential issues with the benchmark implementation.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects include:

1. Using a simple function call with `in` operator (`obj['a.b.c.d']`) and checking for existence using `typeof obj['a.b.c.d'] === 'object'`.
2. Utilizing libraries like jQuery (not directly relevant here) or other data manipulation libraries.
3. Implementing your own custom function for accessing nested properties.

However, the optional chaining syntax (`?.`) and Lodash's `_get()` function are more concise and expressive ways to access nested properties, making them popular choices among developers.

In conclusion, when choosing between using optional chaining (`?.`) or a library like Lodash (`_.get()`), consider factors such as performance, code readability, and the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

?. versus _.get lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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