Benchmark: Optional Chainin a?.b?.c?.d versus _.get lodash

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional Chaining
Lodash

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to access nested properties in JavaScript:

1. Optional Chaining (`?.`)
2. Lodash's `_.get` function
3. A simple "fallback" approach using the OR operator (`||`)

**What is being tested?**

* How efficient are the three approaches?
* Which one is faster?

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Optional Chaining (`.?.`)**: This is a new feature in JavaScript introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It allows you to access nested properties of an object using a safe navigation operator (`?.`).
2. **Lodash's `_.get` function**: Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various helper functions, including `_.get`, which allows you to safely navigate through objects.
3. **Fallback approach using OR operator (`||`)**: This approach uses the OR operator to provide a default value if any of the properties are null or undefined.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Optional Chaining (`?.`)**:
	* Pros: concise, readable, and efficient (since it avoids unnecessary property access).
	* Cons: only works with modern JavaScript engines that support the feature.
2. **Lodash's `_.get` function**:
	* Pros: widely supported, reliable, and flexible (can handle nested objects with different data types).
	* Cons: adds overhead due to the function call and its logic.
3. **Fallback approach using OR operator (`||`)**:
	* Pros: simple, easy to understand, and works across all JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: can lead to unnecessary property access and may not be as efficient.

**Library used in test case**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used in the `_.get` function. Lodash is a utility library that provides various helper functions, including `_.get`, which allows you to safely navigate through objects. The purpose of Lodash is to provide a robust and flexible way to work with JavaScript objects.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

Optional Chaining (`?.`) is a new feature in JavaScript introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It's used to access nested properties of an object using a safe navigation operator.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark uses two different test cases:
	+ One with `_.get` function from Lodash.
	+ Another with the fallback approach using OR operator (`||`).
* The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of these three approaches, which may vary depending on the specific use case and input data.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to access nested properties in JavaScript, you can consider:

1. **Brackets notation**: Instead of using `?.`, you can use brackets notation (`[]`) to access nested properties, like this: `obj.a.b.c.d`.
2. **Property access with null checks**: You can use explicit null checks, like this: `if (obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d) { ... }`.

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best choice depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chainin a?.b?.c?.d versus _.get lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

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):