Benchmark: Manual optional Chaining versus _.get lodash versus ? 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 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)
actual optional chaining
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
actual optional chaining

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.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case that compares the performance of three approaches:

1. **Manual optional Chaining**: This approach uses explicit null checks to navigate through nested objects using the `==` operator.
2. **Lodash's _.get() function**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that provides a safer and more concise way to access nested object properties while handling null values.
3. **Actual optional chaining**: This approach uses the new optional chaining feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows for more expressive and safe navigation through nested objects using the `?.` operator.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach on a specific test case:

* The first two approaches use an identical syntax to access a deeply nested object property (`obj.a.b.c.d`).
* The actual optional chaining approach uses the new syntax with optional chaining (`obj?.a?.b?.c?.d`) and also includes null checks using `|| 2`.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Manual optional Chaining**:
	* Pros: Simple, well-known syntax, easy to understand.
	* Cons: Inefficient due to multiple null checks, can lead to errors if not done correctly.
2. **Lodash's _.get() function**:
	* Pros: Provides a safe and concise way to access nested object properties while handling null values.
	* Cons: Requires including an external library (Lodash), may have overhead due to the extra function call.
3. **Actual optional chaining**:
	* Pros: More expressive, safer, and efficient than manual optional chaining, as it avoids explicit null checks.
	* Cons: New syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which may not be widely supported yet.

**Library used:**

The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.17.5 for its _.get() function.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The benchmark takes advantage of the new optional chaining feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows for more expressive and safe navigation through nested objects using the `?.` operator. This syntax is only available in modern browsers that support ECMAScript 2020.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark's performance results are likely influenced by factors such as browser caching, JavaScript engine optimizations, and network latency.
* The actual optional chaining approach may have a slight performance advantage due to its ability to avoid explicit null checks, but the difference is likely small compared to other factors affecting performance.
* To get meaningful results from this benchmark, it's essential to consider the specific use case and requirements of your application.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to achieve similar results without using optional chaining or Lodash's _.get() function, you could explore:

* Using a different syntax or API for accessing nested object properties (e.g., `obj.a && obj.a.b && ...`)
* Implementing your own null check and value retrieval logic
* Using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality (e.g., moment.js for date manipulation)

However, these alternatives may introduce additional complexity, overhead, or performance trade-offs compared to the original approaches used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Manual optional Chaining versus _.get lodash versus ? optional chaining (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Optional Chaining vs Lodash vs actual optional chaining

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Optional Chaining

Lodash

actual optional chaining

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):