Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Optional Chaining TypeScript old spice
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Old spice vs Optional chaining
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Old spice
const response = { "$metaData" : { "httpStatusCode" : 404 } } let foo = false; if (response && !!response.$metadata && !!response.$metadata.httpStatusCode && response.$metadata.httpStatusCode>= 400) { foo = true; }
Optional chaining
const response = { "$metaData" : { "httpStatusCode" : 404 } } let foo = false; if(response?.$metaData?.httpStatusCode) { foo = true; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Old spice
Optional chaining
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):
I'll break down the provided benchmark definition, test cases, and latest benchmark results to explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the script preparation code and optional chaining syntax. The code snippets in the "Benchmark Definition" section are used as input for the microbenchmarking tool. In this case, there are two test cases: 1. **Old spice**: This test case uses the older Optional Chaining syntax (e.g., `response && !!response.$metadata.httpStatusCode`) to check if a property exists and its value is truthy. 2. **Optional chaining**: This test case uses the newer Optional Chaining syntax (e.g., `response?.httpStatusCode`) to achieve the same result as the older syntax. **Options Compared:** The two options being compared are: 1. **Old spice**: Uses the older Optional Chaining syntax with multiple checks (`&&` and `!!`). 2. **Optional chaining**: Uses the newer Optional Chaining syntax with a single check (`?.`). **Pros and Cons of Each Approach:** **Old Spice (older syntax):** Pros: * Widely supported in older browsers and JavaScript engines. * Can be easier to understand for developers familiar with older syntax. Cons: * More verbose and harder to read. * Requires additional checks using `!!`, which can introduce performance overhead. **Optional Chaining (newer syntax):** Pros: * Easier to read and maintain than the older syntax. * Reduces verbosity and improves code readability. * Less prone to errors due to its more explicit structure. Cons: * Not supported in older browsers and JavaScript engines, which may limit its use. * Can be less efficient due to the additional complexity of optional chaining. **Library and Purpose:** None are mentioned explicitly in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the tests assume a JavaScript environment with built-in support for Optional Chaining syntax. **Special JS Features or Syntax:** Optional Chaining (`?.`) is a newer feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES10). It allows you to access nested properties of objects without throwing errors if the property doesn't exist. This feature was added to provide a more concise and expressive way to check for nullity and undefined values. **Other Alternatives:** If Optional Chaining is not supported, developers can use other approaches to achieve similar results, such as: 1. Using `in` operator with `null` checks. 2. Using the `hasOwnProperty()` method or `instanceof` operator for object property checks. 3. Using a library like Lodash or other utility libraries that provide optional chaining functions. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have performance overhead, readability issues, or limitations compared to Optional Chaining syntax. In conclusion, the benchmarking tool is testing the performance of two different approaches to optional chaining: older syntax with multiple checks and newer syntax with a single check. The results should indicate which approach is more efficient and performant.
Related benchmarks:
ES6 Optional Chaining vs TS Optional Chaining result in javascript vs vs. Lodash _.get
Optional chaining vs native code(Opt)
Option chaining and typeof
Option chaining and typeof 2
Optional chaining vs native code v3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?