Benchmark: loadash get vs optional chaining

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var x = { a: { b: { c: { d: 1 } } } }

Tests:

optional chaining
var y = (_d = (_c = (_b = (_a = x) === null || _a === void 0 ? void 0 : _a.a) === null || _b === void 0 ? void 0 : _b.b) === null || _c === void 0 ? void 0 : _c.c) === null || _d === void 0 ? void 0 : _d.d;
lodash get
var y = _.get(x, 'a.b.c.d');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
optional chaining
lodash get

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for accessing nested properties in JavaScript:

1. `lodash.get()`
2. Optional Chaining (`?.`)

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provides an object `x` with nested properties: `{ a: { b: { c: { d: 1 } } } }`. This object will be used as the data source for both test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes the JavaScript file for Lodash, which is required by the first test case (`lodash.get()`).

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

### 1. Optional Chaining (`?.`)

This test case uses the new optional chaining operator (`?.`) in JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2020.

```javascript
var y = (_d = (_c = (_b = (_a = x) === null || _a === void 0 ? void 0 : _a.a) === null || _b === void 0 ? void 0 : _b.b) === null || _c === void 0 ? void 0 : _c.c) === null || _d === void 0 ? void 0 : _d.d);
```

This code checks if each nested property exists before trying to access it. If any of the properties do not exist, the expression will evaluate to `null`.

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* Readability: The optional chaining operator makes the code more readable by clearly expressing intent.
* Null Safety: It helps prevent null pointer exceptions.

Cons:

* Performance: Optional chaining can be slower than directly accessing nested properties.

### 2. Lodash `.get()` function

This test case uses the `_.get()` function from the Lodash library to access nested properties.

```javascript
var y = _.get(x, 'a.b.c.d');
```

**Library:** `_` is an alias for the Lodash library, which provides utility functions for working with JavaScript data structures.

**Pros and Cons:**

Pros:

* Performance: `.get()` is generally faster than using optional chaining.
* Flexibility: It allows you to specify a fallback value if any of the properties do not exist.

Cons:

* Dependence on external library: The benchmark requires Lodash to be loaded, which may add overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-offs between readability and performance. If null safety is crucial for your use case, optional chaining (`?.`) might be a better choice. However, if speed is critical, using the `_.get()` function from Lodash could be a better option.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to accessing nested properties include:

* Directly accessing nested properties (without any operator)
* Using `in` operator to check property existence
* Using a recursive function to traverse the object

However, these approaches may not provide the same level of readability or null safety as optional chaining (`?.`) and the Lodash `.get()` function.

Related benchmarks:

loadash get vs optional chaining (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: optional chaining vs lodash get

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

optional chaining

lodash get

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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