Benchmark: Optional Chaining vs Optional Chaining null safe vs _.get lodash

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Optional Chaining
(obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d) || 2 (badObj.a == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c.d) || 2
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)
Optional Chaining v2
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
Optional Chaining
Lodash
Optional Chaining v2

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'll explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark tests three approaches to access nested properties in an object:

1. **Optional Chaining**: This is a syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows using `?.` to safely navigate through nested objects, returning `undefined` if any step fails.
2. **Lodash's _.get() method**: Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript. Its `.get()` method provides a safe way to access nested properties in an object, returning `undefined` if any step fails.

The benchmark also includes a comparison with the older syntax:

3. **Older Syntax (with conditional checks)**: This approach uses explicit conditional checks (`obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : ...`) to navigate through nested objects.

**Options Compared**

* Optional Chaining vs Older Syntax
* Lodash's _.get() method vs Older Syntax

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Optional Chaining**:
	* Pros: concise, readable, and safer (since it automatically stops navigation if any step fails).
	* Cons: may be slower than explicit checks, since JavaScript has to parse the syntax.
2. **Lodash's _.get() method**:
	* Pros: provides a consistent and reliable way to access nested properties, with good performance.
	* Cons: adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which may not be desirable for all projects.
3. **Older Syntax**:
	* Pros: widely supported by older browsers and without additional dependencies.
	* Cons: less readable and more prone to errors due to the explicit checks.

**Library Used**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various helper functions, including `.get()`, for working with objects in JavaScript. In this benchmark, Lodash's `.get()` method is used to access nested properties in an object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Optional Chaining (`.?.`) is a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It allows using `?.` to safely navigate through nested objects, returning `undefined` if any step fails.

**Other Alternatives**

* If you prefer not to use Optional Chaining, you can use the older syntax with explicit conditional checks.
* Alternatively, you can use other libraries like Lo-Dash or Underscore.js, which provide similar functionality to Lodash.

In summary, the benchmark tests three approaches to access nested properties in an object: Optional Chaining, Lodash's _.get() method, and the older syntax. The results show that Optional Chaining is the fastest approach, followed closely by Lodash's _.get() method, while the older syntax is slower due to its explicit checks.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining vs Optional Chaining null safe vs _.get lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash vs Optional Chaining v2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

Optional Chaining v2

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):