Benchmark: Lodash get vs. es6 fallback values

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var person = {name: 'Bob', lastName: 'Sponge', foo: { bar: "baz" } };
var p = _.property("foo.bar");

Tests:

Lodash get
const test = _.get(person, 'foo.bar', '');
es6 fallback values
const test =person.foo?.bar ?? ''

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
es6 fallback values

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get	6595586.0 Ops/sec
es6 fallback values	29863386.0 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to accessing nested properties in JavaScript: Lodash's `get` function and ES6's optional chaining (`?.`) with nullish coalescing (`??`).

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash get**: This test case uses the `_.get()` function from Lodash to access the `foo.bar` property of the `person` object.
2. **ES6 fallback values**: This test case uses ES6's optional chaining (`?.`) with nullish coalescing (`??`) to access the `foo.bar` property of the `person` object.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches on a given input (the `person` object). The comparison is likely done in terms of execution speed, which is measured by the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash get**: Pros:
	+ More readable code (some developers might find it easier to understand than ES6's optional chaining).
	+ Easier to use for nested property access.
Cons:
	+ Requires an external library (Lodash) which may add overhead due to download and parsing time.
	+ Might be slower due to the additional processing required by the Lodash function.
* **ES6 fallback values**: Pros:
	+ Built-in functionality, so no additional overhead due to loading an external library.
	+ Lightweight and efficient, as it only uses basic JavaScript operators (`?.` and `??`).
Cons:
	+ Requires knowledge of ES6 syntax, which might be unfamiliar to some developers.
	+ Can lead to less readable code for nested property access.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions and helpers. In this benchmark, the `get()` function from Lodash is used to access nested properties in an object. The `get()` function returns undefined if any part of the path does not exist in the object.

**Special JS feature: ES6 optional chaining**

The test case using ES6's optional chaining (`?.`) with nullish coalescing (`??`) takes advantage of a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2018. This feature allows you to access nested properties without worrying about null or undefined values, making the code more concise and expressive.

**Other alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties in JavaScript include:

* Using `in` operator with bracket notation (e.g., `person['foo']['bar']`)
* Using a simple recursive function
* Using other utility libraries like jQuery or MooTools

However, these alternatives might not be as efficient or readable as Lodash's `get()` function or ES6's optional chaining.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash get vs. es6 fallback values (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs es6 fallback values

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

es6 fallback values

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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