Benchmark: optional method chaining

Script Preparation code:

var x = {};
var o = {
    __n: 1.5,
	yes(m, n) {
      x[m] = Math.pow(n * this.__n, n);
	},
    no() {},
    some: 1,
    one: [{},{},{o: {n: 1}}]
};
var m = ['yes','say','my','name'];

Tests:

&&
m.forEach((x, i) => { o[x] && o[x](x, i); });
?.
m.forEach((x, i) => { o[x]?.(x, i); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
&&
?.

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to method chaining in JavaScript: `&&` and `?.`.

**Method Chaining**

Method chaining is a feature in JavaScript that allows for a chain of method calls on an object. For example:
```javascript
var obj = { foo: 'bar' };
obj.bar(); // calls the bar() method on obj
```
In this case, `obj` has two methods: `foo` and `bar`. The `bar()` method is called on `obj`, which returns an object with a new method. This allows for a chain of method calls.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two options:

1. **&&**: The "and" operator. When used in method chaining, it attempts to call the method if the condition is true.
```javascript
o[x] && o[x](x, i);
```
2. **?.`: The nullish coalescing operator. It returns the value of the expression on the left-hand side if it's not null or undefined, otherwise it returns the value of the expression on the right-hand side.
```javascript
o[x]?.(x, i);
```
**Pros and Cons**

* **&&**: Pros:
	+ Well-known and widely supported operator.
	+ Can be more readable in some cases (e.g., when calling methods with conditions).
Cons:
	+ Can lead to null pointer exceptions if the condition is false.
	+ May not work as expected for primitive types (e.g., strings, numbers).
* **?.`: Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive than `&&` for method chaining.
	+ Avoids null pointer exceptions.
Cons:
	+ Less widely supported than `&&`.
	+ May require more parentheses to achieve the same effect.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that both `&&` and `?.` rely on the ECMAScript language specification, which is maintained by the ECMAScript International Organization (ESIO).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the nullish coalescing operator (`?.`). This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12) and is supported in modern browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If `&&` and `?.` are not suitable for your use case, other alternatives include:

* Using a more traditional approach with conditional statements:
```javascript
if (o[x]) {
  o[x](x, i);
}
```
* Using the optional chaining operator (`?.`) with the dot notation (`o[x]?.dot()`), which was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12).
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda, which provide more advanced function composition and null handling mechanisms.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or readability implications compared to `&&` and `?.`.

Related benchmarks:

optional method chaining (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: && vs ?.

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

&&

?.

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):