Benchmark: Lodash _.has vs Optional Chaining

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Lodash has
_.has(obj, 'a.b.c.d')
Optional Chaining
!!obj?.a?.b?.c?.d

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash has
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically comparing two approaches for accessing nested properties in an object: `_.has` from Lodash and Optional Chaining (`?.`). The test aims to determine which approach is more efficient in terms of performance.

**Test Case Breakdown**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Lodash _.has**: This test uses the `_.has` function from Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. The purpose of this function is to check if an object has a specific property. In this case, it's checking if the object `obj` has a nested property chain `a.b.c.d`.
2. **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**: This test uses the Optional Chaining syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12). The purpose of this syntax is to safely navigate nested properties in an object without throwing errors if the property does not exist.

**Comparison of Options**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash _.has**: A dedicated function for checking if an object has a specific property.
	* Pros:
		+ Explicit and clear intent
		+ Well-established library with good performance
	* Cons:
		+ Requires importing an external library
		+ May add overhead due to function call and library dependencies
2. **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**: A built-in syntax for safe navigation of nested properties.
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and fast, as it's just a syntactic sugar
		+ No external library dependencies or function calls needed
	* Cons:
		+ May require explicit handling of errors (e.g., using `?.` on an undefined value)
		+ Less explicit intent than Lodash _.has

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object manipulation, and more. The `_` variable refers to the root namespace of the library.

In this benchmark, `_.has` is used as a standalone function to check if an object has a specific property. This approach requires importing the Lodash library and adding its dependencies to the project.

**Special JS Feature: Optional Chaining (`?.`)**

Optional Chaining (`?.`) is a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12). It allows safe navigation of nested properties without throwing errors if the property does not exist. The syntax consists of two dots `.` separating two or more values.

In this benchmark, the Optional Chaining syntax is used to access the nested property chain `a.b.c.d` in a single expression. This approach is lightweight and fast but may require explicit handling of errors.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties include:

1. **Property access with dot notation**: Accessing properties using dot notation (e.g., `obj.a.b.c.d`) can be slower than Optional Chaining (`?.`) due to the overhead of string interpolation.
2. **Using a recursive function**: Writing a custom recursive function to access nested properties can be more explicit but may also be slower and more prone to errors.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript: `_.has` from Lodash and Optional Chaining (`?.`). The choice between these options depends on performance requirements, explicit intent, and the desire for a lightweight solution.

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: Lodash has vs Optional Chaining

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash has

Optional Chaining

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):