Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash 1

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
var badObj = {}

Tests:

Optional Chaining
(obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d) || 2 (badObj.a == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c.d) || 2
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two ways to access nested properties in an object: Optional Chaining (ECMAScript 2020) and Lodash's `_get` function.

**Optional Chaining**

Optional Chaining is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to safely navigate nested objects without throwing errors. The syntax for this is `obj.a?.b?.c?.d`, where the `?` symbol indicates that the property is optional and may be null or undefined.

In the benchmark, we have two test cases:

1. "Optional Chaining": This test case uses the new Optional Chaining syntax to access the nested properties of the `obj` object.
2. "Lodash": This test case uses Lodash's `_get` function to achieve the same result as Optional Chaining.

**Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more. The `_get` function is specifically designed to safely access nested properties of an object, similar to how Optional Chaining works.

In the benchmark, we have two test cases:

1. "Optional Chaining": This test case uses the new Optional Chaining syntax.
2. "Lodash": This test case uses Lodash's `_get` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Optional Chaining (ECMAScript 2020)**

Pros:

* New language feature, which can improve code readability and maintainability.
* Faster execution compared to using a library like Lodash.
* Native support in modern browsers.

Cons:

* Only available in ECMAScript 2020 and later.
* May require additional setup or polyfills for older browsers.
* Limited support for older browsers.

**Lodash's `_get` function**

Pros:

* Wide support across older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
* Can be used in conjunction with other Lodash functions to create complex data manipulation pipelines.
* Well-documented and widely adopted within the JavaScript community.

Cons:

* Adds an extra dependency to your project (Lodash library).
* May lead to slower execution compared to using a native language feature like Optional Chaining.
* Requires more setup or configuration for older browsers.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* Project requirements: If you're targeting modern browsers and want to take advantage of new language features, use Optional Chaining. For broader compatibility, use Lodash's `_get` function.
* Code readability and maintainability: Optional Chaining can lead to more readable code due to its simplicity and clarity.
* Performance: In some cases, Optional Chaining might be slightly faster than using a library like Lodash.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative solutions, consider the following:

1. **Bracket notation**: `obj["a"]["b"]["c"]` or `obj.a.b.c`, which is slower and less readable but still supported by older browsers.
2. **Dynamic property access**: Using a library like jQuery or a custom solution to achieve dynamic property access, which can be slower and more error-prone.

Overall, the choice between Optional Chaining and Lodash's `_get` function depends on your specific project requirements, target audience, and performance constraints.

Related benchmarks:

Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

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):