Benchmark: lodash has vs native js (with .?)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-WFN04846sdKMIP5LKNphMaWzU7YpMyCU245etK3g/2ARYbPK9Ub18eG+ljU96qKRCWh+quCY7yefSmlkQw1ANQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

object = {
  item: {
    subitem: {
      id: 1
    }
  }
}

Tests:

lodash has
_.has(object, 'item.subitem.id',);
native js (.?)
object?.item?.subitem?.id

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash has
native js (.?)

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/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash has	5230122.0 Ops/sec
native js (.?)	17442760.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two approaches to access an object's property: using `_.has` from the Lodash library and using a native JavaScript syntax with optional chaining (`?.`) and dot notation (`.`).

**Options compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash `.has`**: This method is part of the Lodash library, which provides utility functions for various tasks, including string manipulation, array manipulation, and object inspection.
2. **Native JavaScript (.?) syntax**: This syntax allows you to access an object's property while providing a fallback value if the property does not exist.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash `.has`**

Pros:

* Provides a simple and straightforward way to check for an object property
* Returns a boolean value indicating whether the property exists

Cons:

* Requires including an additional library (Lodash) in your project
* May be slower than native JavaScript code due to the overhead of a function call

**Native JavaScript (.?) syntax**

Pros:

* Eliminates the need for an additional library
* Can be faster than Lodash `.has` since it's just a simple property access

Cons:

* Requires support for optional chaining in modern browsers (Chrome 128 and above)
* May not work as expected in older browsers or environments that do not support `?.`

**Library**

In this case, the `_.has` method is from Lodash, which provides utility functions for working with objects.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The test uses optional chaining (`?.`) with dot notation to access an object property. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES2020) and allows you to access nested properties while providing a fallback value if the intermediate property does not exist. In this case, it's used as `object?.item?.subitem.id`.

**Other alternatives**

If using Lodash is not feasible or preferred, other alternatives for checking object properties include:

* Using a simple string-based check (e.g., `"in"`)
* Utilizing a library like `propcheck` or `is-property`
* Implementing custom checks within your codebase

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

If using native JavaScript syntax without optional chaining, you can use the following approach:
```javascript
function hasProperty(obj, prop) {
  if (obj[prop] !== undefined) return true;
  return false;
}
```
This function checks if a property exists on an object by comparing its existence to `undefined`. If the property exists, it returns `true`, otherwise it returns `false`.

Related benchmarks:

lodash has vs native js (with .?) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash has vs native js (.?)

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash has

native js (.?)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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