Benchmark: Lodash.get vs Property dot notation with ?

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var person = {name: 'Frederick', lastName: 'Corcino Alejo'};

Tests:

Lodash get
_.get(person, 'name');
Native
person?.name

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash get
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash get	40952368.0 Ops/sec
Native	154695408.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to access a nested property in an object: Lodash's `_.get` method and native JavaScript syntax using optional chaining (`?.`).

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash's `_.get` method**: This is a utility function provided by the Lodash library, which helps with accessing nested properties in objects.
2. **Native JavaScript syntax (`.property ?`)**: This approach uses the optional chaining operator (`?.`) to access the nested property.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash's `_.get` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a more explicit way of accessing nested properties, which can improve code readability.
		+ Can be used with any object that supports dot notation.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external dependency (Lodash library) to the project.
		+ May have performance implications due to the additional function call.
2. **Native JavaScript syntax (.property ?)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Eliminates the need for an external library, reducing dependencies and potential performance overhead.
		+ Can provide better performance since it's a built-in operator.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires support for optional chaining in the browser or environment being tested.

**Special JavaScript Feature**

The benchmark uses the **optional chaining operator (`?.`)**, which is a relatively recent feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES12). This operator allows you to access nested properties without throwing an error if they don't exist. The syntax `person?.name` is used to check if `person` has a `name` property before trying to access it.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which provides various utility functions for working with objects, arrays, and other data structures. In this specific case, the `_.get` method is used to access nested properties.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If you need to optimize performance, native JavaScript syntax using optional chaining might be a better choice.
* Code readability and maintainability: Lodash's `_.get` method can provide more explicit code for accessing nested properties, making it easier to read and understand.
* Library dependencies: Depending on your project requirements, eliminating external libraries like Lodash can simplify the build process or reduce dependencies.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for accessing nested properties include:

1. **Brackets (`[]`) notation**: `person['name']` is a more traditional way of accessing properties in JavaScript.
2. **Property access with dot notation**: `person.name`
3. **Using `in` operator**: `if ('name' in person)` can be used to check if an object has a property.

However, these alternatives might not provide the same level of readability or explicitness as Lodash's `_.get` method or native JavaScript syntax with optional chaining.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.get vs Property dot notation with ? (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash get vs Native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash get

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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