Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Optional chaining vs Lodash.get 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Optional Chaining vs Lodash
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}} var badObj = {}
Tests:
Optional Chaining
obj?.a?.b?.c?.d badObj?.a?.b?.c?.d
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d") _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark compares two approaches to access nested properties in an object: Optional Chaining (`?.`) and Lodash's `_.get()` method. **Optional Chaining (?.)** * Description: This syntax allows you to safely navigate through nested objects without throwing errors if any of the intermediate steps don't exist. * Pros: + Concise and readable + Reduces the risk of null pointer exceptions * Cons: + Can be slower than traditional property access due to the overhead of the parser and the runtime checks **Lodash's _.get() method** * Description: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that allows you to safely navigate through nested objects. It provides an additional parameter for providing a default value if any step in the navigation doesn't exist. * Pros: + Can be faster than Optional Chaining due to its caching and memoization + Provides more control over error handling * Cons: + Requires the Lodash library, which may add overhead + Less concise and readable than Optional Chaining **Other Considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-off between conciseness, readability, and performance. If you prioritize these factors, Optional Chaining might be a better choice. However, if you need more control over error handling or are concerned about performance, Lodash's _.get() method might be a better fit. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object manipulation, and string manipulation. The `_.get()` method is part of this library and is designed to provide safe navigation through nested objects. **Special JS Feature/Syntax: Optional Chaining (?.)** Optional Chaining (`?.`) is a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12) that allows you to safely navigate through nested objects. It's denoted by three dots (`...`) and is used with the nullish coalescing operator (`??`). For example, `obj?.a?.b?.c.d` will return `d` if all the intermediate steps exist, or `undefined` otherwise. Note that while Optional Chaining is a useful feature, it's not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. Instead, the test cases focus on comparing the performance of this syntax with Lodash's _.get() method.
Related benchmarks:
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (with obj in the optional chain test)
ES6 Optional Chaining vs TS Optional Chaining result in javascript vs vs. Lodash _.get
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash without badObj
Lodash _.has vs Optional Chaining
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?