Benchmark: Optional chaining vs native code vs babel-transform

Script Preparation code:

Tests:

Optional Chaining
foo?.bar?.baz?.qux?.aaa
Native
foo && foo.bar && foo.bar.baz && foo.bar.baz.qux && foo.bar.baz.qux.aaa
babel-loader
(_foo = foo) === null || _foo === void 0 ? void 0 : (_foo$bar = _foo.bar) === null || _foo$bar === void 0 ? void 0 : (_foo$bar$baz = _foo$bar.baz) === null || _foo$bar$baz === void 0 ? void 0 : (_foo$bar$baz$qux = _foo$bar$baz.qux) === null || _foo$bar$baz$qux === void 0 ? void 0 : _foo$bar$baz$qux.aaa;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
Native
babel-loader

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.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of three different approaches to access nested properties in an object: Optional Chaining (`?.`), Native code, and Babel Transform.

**Options compared:**

1. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access nested properties. It returns `undefined` if any of the properties are null or undefined.
2. **Native Code**: This approach uses a traditional, explicit way to access nested properties, similar to how it would be written in native JavaScript.
3. **Babel Transform**: This approach uses the Babel transform for optional chaining (`babel-transform`) to achieve the same result as Optional Chaining.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Optional Chaining (?.)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable syntax
		- Less code, potentially faster execution
	+ Cons:
		- May not be supported in older browsers or environments
		- Can lead to silent failures if not used carefully
* **Native Code**:
	+ Pros:
		- Wide support across modern browsers
		- Easy to understand and maintain
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose syntax, potentially slower execution
		- May require more code to achieve the same result as Optional Chaining
* **Babel Transform (babel-loader)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Allows using Optional Chaining in environments that don't support it natively
		- Can be optimized for performance
	+ Cons:
		- Requires additional setup and configuration with Babel
		- May add overhead due to transpilation

**Library used:**

In the provided benchmark, `babel-loader` is used as a transformation library to enable Optional Chaining in environments that don't support it natively. The `babel-transform` option is specified in the Benchmark Definition JSON.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

Optional Chaining (`?.`) is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It allows accessing nested properties with a concise syntax, making code more readable and expressive.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to support older browsers or environments that don't support Optional Chaining, you may consider using other approaches, such as:

* **Conditional statements**: Using traditional conditional statements (e.g., `if` statements) to access nested properties.
* **Function-based approach**: Creating a function that wraps the access to nested properties, allowing for more control over the execution flow.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and potential performance implications. MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps you understand the relative performance of these approaches in different scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Optional chaining vs native code vs babel-transform (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Native vs babel-loader

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Native

babel-loader

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):