Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
optional chaining X old spice
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
old spice vs optional chaining
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
old spice
const testObj = { 'a': {'b': 1, 'c': 'fuzz'} } testObj && testObj.a && testObj.a.c
optional chaining
const testObj = { 'a': {'b': 1, 'c': 'fuzz'} } testObj?.a?.c
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
old spice
optional chaining
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome Mobile 120 on Android
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=496364" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
old spice
620.0M/s
optional chaining
603.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
old spice
620,008,192 Ops/sec
optional chaining
603,678,528 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the explanation of the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **What is tested?** The benchmark tests two approaches to accessing nested properties in an object: 1. **Old Spice**: The first approach uses the `&&` operator to access the nested properties. It checks if `testObj.a` exists, and only then attempts to access `testObj.a.c`. If either of these checks fails, the expression will return `undefined`. 2. **Optional Chaining** (`?.`): The second approach uses optional chaining to access the nested properties. It uses the nullish coalescing operator (`?.`) to safely navigate through the object's property chain. **Options compared** The benchmark compares two options: * **Old Spice**: This approach uses the traditional `&&` operator to check for existence before accessing nested properties. * **Optional Chaining** (`?.`): This approach uses a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows you to safely access nested properties without fear of `null` or `undefined` exceptions. **Pros and Cons** * **Old Spice**: + Pros: Widely supported by older browsers and JavaScript engines. + Cons: Can lead to performance issues if not used carefully (e.g., multiple consecutive checks). * **Optional Chaining** (`?.`): + Pros: Simplifies code, reduces errors, and improves performance (since it avoids the need for explicit existence checks). + Cons: Requires support for ECMAScript 2020 or later. **Library usage** There is no library used in this benchmark. The syntax and behavior are built-in JavaScript features. **Special JS feature** The benchmark uses a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2020, specifically the optional chaining operator (`?.`). This syntax was added to provide a safe way to access nested properties without fear of `null` or `undefined` exceptions. **Benchmark preparation code and result** The benchmark preparation code is minimal, with only an object literal defining the test data. The results are provided in JSON format, showing: * **Browser**: The browser used for execution. * **DevicePlatform**: The device platform used (in this case, Mobile). * **OperatingSystem**: The operating system used (Android). * **ExecutionsPerSecond**: The number of executions per second. **Other alternatives** If you prefer to use a different approach or library, here are some alternatives: 1. **Using `hasOwnProperty()`**: Instead of using the `&&` operator, you can use the `hasOwnProperty()` method to check if an object has a specific property. 2. **Using `in` operator with `hasOwnProperty()`**: You can also use the `in` operator in combination with `hasOwnProperty()` to achieve similar results. Here's an example using `hasOwnProperty()`: ```javascript const testObj = { 'a': {'b': 1, 'c': 'fuzz'} }; if (testObj.hasOwnProperty('a') && testObj.a.hasOwnProperty('c')) { console.log(testObj.a.c); } ``` Keep in mind that these alternatives may have slightly different performance characteristics compared to the optional chaining operator.
Related benchmarks
mustache@4.0.1 vs handlebars@4.7.6
mustache rendering performance 4
mustache vs handlebars rendering performance
mustache@4.2.0 vs handlebars@4.7.8
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?