Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash aaaaa
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Optional Chaining vs Lodash
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
Tests:
Optional Chaining
obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Optional Chaining
Lodash
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):
Let's dive into explaining what is tested on the provided JSON that represents the benchmark. **Benchmark Purpose** The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches for accessing nested properties in an object: 1. **Optional Chaining**: This approach uses the nullish coalescing operator (`??`) to access nested properties in a safe and efficient manner. 2. **Lodash's `_.get()` method**: This approach uses Lodash's utility function to safely navigate through nested objects. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches: * Optional Chaining * Lodash's `_.get()` method **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Optional Chaining** Pros: * Efficient and lightweight * Supports nullish coalescing, which can improve performance in certain scenarios * Easy to use and intuitive syntax Cons: * May not be as readable or maintainable for complex nested objects * Does not provide explicit control over error handling **Lodash's `_.get()` method** Pros: * Provides explicit control over error handling (e.g., returning a default value if the path does not exist) * Supports more advanced navigation patterns (e.g., using multiple paths and defaults) Cons: * May be slower due to the overhead of function calls * Requires additional dependency on Lodash **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and object traversal. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.get()` method is used to safely navigate through nested objects. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark does not require any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is already available in modern browsers (ECMAScript 2015+). **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative approaches, some options include: * Using the `in` operator and explicit checks to access nested properties * Utilizing a recursive function to traverse the object graph * Leveraging the `JSON.parse()` method with a custom JSON parser to parse nested objects However, these alternatives may be less efficient or more verbose than Optional Chaining and Lodash's `_.get()` method.
Related benchmarks:
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (with obj in the optional chain test)
ES6 Optional Chaining vs TS Optional Chaining result in javascript vs vs. Lodash _.get
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash without badObj
Lodash _.has vs Optional Chaining
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?