Benchmark: Lodash _.get() vs Optional Chaining

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
var badObj = {}

Tests:

Lodash _.get()
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)
Optional Chaining
obj?.a?.b?.c?.d || 2 badObj?.a?.b?.c?.d || 2

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash _.get()
Optional Chaining

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/146.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash _.get()	12770384.0 Ops/sec
Optional Chaining	270282752.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark compares two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript objects: Lodash's `_get()` method and optional chaining (also known as the optional catcher syntax, introduced in ECMAScript 2020).

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Lodash's `_get()` method**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that provides a way to access nested properties of an object.
2. **Optional Chaining (?.)**: This is a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to access nested properties of an object without the need for explicit `null` checks or chaining methods.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

### Lodash's `_get()` method

Pros:

* More verbose, but provides more control over error handling and property access.
* Can be used with custom properties or arrays.

Cons:

* Requires importing the Lodash library.
* May add unnecessary overhead due to function call and object lookup.

### Optional Chaining (?.)

Pros:

* Less verbose and easier to read.
* Faster performance, as it avoids explicit `null` checks and chaining methods.
* Native support in modern JavaScript engines.

Cons:

* Limited control over error handling and property access.
* May not work correctly with custom properties or arrays.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides various utility functions for tasks like array manipulation, object iteration, and more. The `_get()` method is one of its many useful helpers for accessing nested properties of objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: Optional Chaining (?.)**

Optional Chaining was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 as a new syntax for accessing nested properties of objects without explicit `null` checks or chaining methods. It allows you to write more concise and expressive code, such as `obj?.a?.b?.c`, which is equivalent to `obj && obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches for accessing nested properties of objects, here are a few alternatives:

1. **Brackets (`[]`)**: You can use square brackets `[]` to access nested properties of an object, like this: `obj['a']['b']['c']`.
2. **Destructuring assignment**: You can use destructuring assignment to extract nested properties from objects, like this: `const { a, b, c } = obj;`.
3. **Built-in `in` operator**: You can use the `in` operator to check if an object has a particular property, and then access it using square brackets `[]`.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or readability trade-offs compared to Lodash's `_get()` method and optional chaining.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash _.get() vs Optional Chaining (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash _.get() vs Optional Chaining

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash _.get()

Optional Chaining

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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