Benchmark: ES6 Optional Chaining 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:

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 Definition**

The test is comparing two approaches: ES6 Optional Chaining (`?.`) and Lodash's `_get` function, which both aim to safely access nested properties of an object without throwing errors if any of those properties don't exist.

**Options Compared**

* **ES6 Optional Chaining**: This syntax allows you to access nested properties in a more concise way. For example, instead of `obj.a.b.c.d`, you can use `obj?.a?.b?.c?.d`. If any of the intermediate properties are null or undefined, the expression will short-circuit and return undefined.
* **Lodash's `_get` function**: This function takes an object, a path (string), and a default value as arguments. It attempts to access the nested property at the specified path and returns the result if it exists; otherwise, it returns the default value.

**Pros and Cons**

* **ES6 Optional Chaining**:
	+ Pros: More concise syntax, reduces the risk of errors due to typos or missing intermediate properties.
	+ Cons: May be less readable for complex nested structures, and can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.
* **Lodash's `_get` function**:
	+ Pros: Flexible and configurable (e.g., you can specify different default values), robust error handling, and easy to use with complex nested paths.
	+ Cons: Adds dependency on Lodash library, may be slower due to the additional overhead of a function call.

**Library**

In this benchmark, Lodash's `_get` function is used. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and object manipulation (like `_get`). It's often used in web development to simplify common tasks.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches rely on standard JavaScript syntax and libraries (Lodash for the `_get` function).

**Other Alternatives**

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

* **Conditional Access**: You can use a conditional statement to access nested properties: `obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d`. This approach is more explicit and less concise than the optional chaining syntax but avoids potential issues with typos or missing intermediate properties.
* **Function Call**: Instead of using an object's property, you can define a function that returns the desired value. For example: `function getD(obj) { return obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d; }`. This approach is more verbose but provides complete control over the logic.

Overall, the ES6 Optional Chaining syntax offers a concise and readable way to access nested properties while minimizing errors. Lodash's `_get` function provides flexibility and robustness but adds dependency on an external library. The choice between these approaches depends on your specific use case, personal preference, and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

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):