Benchmark: R.pathOr vs optional chaining

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.30.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var account1 = {
    subscriptions: {
        suite: {
            status: 'in_trial',
            currentTermStart: new Date(),
            currentTermEnd: new Date()
        }
    }
};

var account2 = {
    subscriptions: {
        suite: {
            status: 'active',
            currentTermStart: new Date(),
            currentTermEnd: new Date()
        }
    }
};

var account3 = {
    subscriptions: {
        myplan_v1: {
            status: 'active',
            currentTermStart: new Date(),
            currentTermEnd: new Date()
        }
    }
};

var iterations = 1000000;

Tests:

With Ramda
for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { const res1 = R.pathOr(null, ['subscriptions', 'suite', 'status'], account1) === 'in_trial'; const res2 = R.pathOr(null, ['subscriptions', 'suite', 'status'], account2) === 'in_trial'; const res3 = R.pathOr(null, ['subscriptions', 'suite', 'status'], account3) === 'in_trial'; }
With optional chaining
for (i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { const res1 = account1?.subscriptions?.suite?.status === 'in_trial'; const res2 = account2?.subscriptions?.suite?.status === 'in_trial'; const res3 = account3?.subscriptions?.suite?.status === 'in_trial'; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
With Ramda
With optional chaining

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 144 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
With Ramda	10.7 Ops/sec
With optional chaining	297.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark test and its options.

**Benchmark Test**

The benchmark test compares two ways to access nested object properties in JavaScript: using `R.pathOr` from the Ramda library (a functional programming library) and the optional chaining operator (`?.`) introduced in ECMAScript 2020.

**Options Compared**

1. **Ramda's `pathOr`**: This function takes three arguments: a value to default to if the path doesn't exist, an array of keys to access the nested property, and an object to search for the property.
2. **Optional Chaining Operator (`?.`)**: This operator is used to access nested properties in a more concise way. It returns `undefined` if any part of the expression is `null` or `undefined`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Ramda's `pathOr`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More explicit and predictable way to handle missing keys.
		+ Can be useful for complex path expressions.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires importing an additional library (Ramda).
		+ May have performance overhead due to the additional function call.
2. **Optional Chaining Operator (`?.`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable way to access nested properties.
		+ Built-in operator, so no additional imports are needed.
	* Cons:
		+ Less explicit and may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Performance**: In general, the optional chaining operator (`?.`) is likely to be faster than using `pathOr` due to its built-in nature and fewer function calls.
2. **Code Readability**: The optional chaining operator (`?.`) is generally more concise and readable than using `pathOr`, especially for simple path expressions.

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures. In this benchmark test, `R.pathOr` is used to access nested properties in a more explicit way.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The optional chaining operator (`?.`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 as part of the `Object.entries()` method. It's a concise way to access nested properties and can be used with any object, not just objects that inherit from `Object`.

Other alternatives for this benchmark test could include:

* Using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality to Ramda, such as Lodash.
* Implementing custom functions for accessing nested properties using loops or recursive functions.
* Using other ES6+ features, such as destructuring or template literals, to access nested properties.

Related benchmarks:

R.pathOr vs optional chaining (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: With Ramda vs With optional chaining

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

With Ramda

With optional chaining

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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