Benchmark: Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash versus ?.

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)
?.
obj?.a?.b?.c?.d || 2 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 is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to handle optional values in JavaScript:

1. **Optional Chaining**: A feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows you to access nested properties of an object while handling null or undefined values.
2. **Lodash's _.get() method**: A utility function from the Lodash library that provides a safe way to access nested properties of an object, returning undefined if any property is null or undefined.
3. **?. Operator**: A new operator introduced in ECMAScript 2019 that allows you to access nested properties of an object while handling null or undefined values.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach on a test case where an object `obj` and another object `badObj` are created with different structure. The test case checks how many executions per second can be achieved for each approach:

* `obj.a.b.c.d`
* `obj?.a?.b?.c?.d` (Optional Chaining)
* `_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2)` (Lodash's _.get() method)
* `badObj?.a?.b?.c?.d || 2`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Optional Chaining (`obj?.a?.b?.c?.d`)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to read, concise syntax.
	+ Cons: Requires support for ECMAScript 2020 or later. May not be compatible with older browsers or environments.
* **Lodash's _.get() method**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported library, provides a safe way to access nested properties.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra dependency (Lodash), may introduce performance overhead due to function call and argument processing.
* **?. Operator**:
	+ Pros: New operator introduced in ECMAScript 2019, easy to read, concise syntax.
	+ Cons: Requires support for ECMAScript 2019 or later. May not be compatible with older browsers or environments.

**Library Used**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for working with JavaScript objects, arrays, and other data structures.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

* **Optional Chaining (`?.` operator)**: A new operator introduced in ECMAScript 2019, allows you to access nested properties of an object while handling null or undefined values.
* **Lodash's _.get() method**: Uses a safe approach to access nested properties of an object, returning undefined if any property is null or undefined.

**Other Alternatives**

If the `?.` operator and Lodash's `_._get()` method are not available or desired, other alternatives can be used:

* Using traditional null checks (e.g., `obj && obj.a && obj.a.b && obj.a.b.c && obj.a.b.c.d`)
* Using a library like `get-object-by-path` which provides similar functionality to Lodash's `_._get()` method.

Note that the choice of alternative approach depends on the specific use case, personal preference, and requirements of the project.

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash vs ?.

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

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):