Benchmark: Optional Chaining vs Ramda

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = {
    b: {
        c: 1,
    }
}

var iterations = R.range(1, 1000000);

Tests:

Optional chaining after transpiling
iterations.forEach(function () { var _a, _a$b, _a2, _a2$b; var aa = (_a = a) === null || _a === void 0 ? void 0 : (_a$b = _a.b) === null || _a$b === void 0 ? void 0 : _a$b.c; var bb = (_a2 = a) === null || _a2 === void 0 ? void 0 : (_a2$b = _a2.b) === null || _a2$b === void 0 ? void 0 : _a2$b.d; });
R.path
iterations.forEach(function () { var aa = R.path(['b', 'c'])(a); var bb = R.path(['b', 'd'])(a); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional chaining after transpiling
R.path

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Optional chaining after transpiling	16.3 Ops/sec
R.path	4.3 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 provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript approaches for optional chaining (also known as safe navigation) in different libraries: native JavaScript (`Optional Chaining`) versus Ramda.

**Library Explanation**

1. **Native JavaScript (`Optional Chaining`)**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2020, `optional chaining` allows accessing nested properties of an object without throwing a null pointer exception if the property is null or undefined. It's implemented using three consecutive dot (`...`) notation.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides various utility functions, including support for optional chaining.

**Benchmark Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of two test cases:

1. **Optional Chaining after Transpiling**
This test case transpiles a native JavaScript code snippet (with `optional chaining`) to make it compatible with older browsers and runs it using Chrome 124.
2. **R.path**
This test case uses Ramda's `path` function, which provides an implementation of optional chaining.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the execution speed (`ExecutionsPerSecond`) of the two approaches:

* **Native JavaScript (Optional Chaining)**: This approach relies on the native JavaScript engine to execute the code.
* **Ramda (R.path)**: This approach relies on Ramda's optimized implementation of optional chaining.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

**Native JavaScript (`Optional Chaining`)**

Pros:

* Native performance, as it leverages the browser's engine
* Easy to implement in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2020

Cons:

* May not work in older browsers or environments without transpilation
* Requires compatibility with various browsers and versions

**Ramda (R.path)**

Pros:

* Optimized implementation for performance
* Works in multiple JavaScript environments, including older browsers

Cons:

* Additional dependency on the Ramda library
* May incur a slight performance overhead due to library loading and execution

**Other Considerations**

If you're using a different JavaScript environment or want to achieve optimal performance, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Underscore.js (_.path)**: Another popular utility library that provides an implementation of optional chaining.
2. **Loose Optional Chaining**: Some browsers support `?.` notation for optional chaining, which can be used as a fallback when Ramda is not available.

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of native JavaScript's optional chaining with Ramda's optimized implementation. While both approaches have their pros and cons, native JavaScript provides better compatibility but may incur additional overhead due to transpilation.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining vs Ramda (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional chaining after transpiling vs R.path

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional chaining after transpiling

R.path

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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