Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash.each vs Array.forEach vs jQuery.each vs for - function call
(version: 1)
Compares lodash.each, Array.prototype.forEach, jQuery.each, for and for..of, when the loop body calls function.
Comparing performance of:
lodash.each vs native vs for loop vs jQuery each vs for..of loop
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.5.1.slim.min.js"></script> <script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var array = new Array(1000); for (let i = 0, l = array.length; i < l; ++i) array[i] = i; function fn (item) { return item * 2 * 5; }
Tests:
lodash.each
_.forEach(array,fn)
native
array.forEach(fn)
for loop
for(let i = 0, l = array.length; i < l; ++i) fn(array[i]);
jQuery each
$.each(array, fn);
for..of loop
for (const item of array) fn(item);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (5)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash.each
native
for loop
jQuery each
for..of loop
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark compares four different approaches to iterate over an array in JavaScript: 1. `lodash.each` 2. Native `Array.prototype.forEach` 3. jQuery's `$.each` 4. For loops (with two variations: traditional `for` loop and `for..of` loop) **Options Compared** The four options being compared are designed to test the performance of each iteration method in different scenarios. * `lodash.each`: A third-party library function that iterates over an array, providing a more functional programming approach. * Native `Array.prototype.forEach`: A built-in JavaScript method for iterating over arrays. * jQuery's `$.each`: A wrapper around the native `forEach` method, specific to the jQuery library. * For loops: Two types of traditional for loops are compared: + Traditional `for` loop: The classic, explicit loop syntax using an index variable. + `for..of` loop: A newer, more concise syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which uses a simple declaration statement to iterate over arrays. **Pros and Cons** Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each option: * **Lodash `.each`**: Pros: + Easy to use and understand. + More functional programming style, which can lead to more expressive code. Cons: + An external dependency (Lodash). + May have performance overhead due to function call overhead. * **Native `Array.prototype.forEach`**: + Built-in method, no additional dependencies. + Lightweight and efficient. Pros: + Fast and lightweight. Cons: + Less explicit control over iteration than traditional for loops. * **jQuery's `$each`**: + Wrapper around native `forEach`, providing a familiar jQuery API. + May have performance overhead due to the wrapper function. Pros: + Easy to use and understand, especially for developers already familiar with jQuery. Cons: + Additional dependency (jQuery). + May not be as lightweight or efficient as native methods. * **For loops**: + Pros: - Explicit control over iteration. - No dependencies or external libraries. + Cons: - More verbose and less readable than other options. - May lead to more errors due to index calculation issues. **Libraries and Special Features** The benchmark uses the following libraries: * Lodash (for `_.each`) * jQuery (for `$each`) No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that other benchmarks may include features like async/await, promises, or modern language features like arrow functions or template literals. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to the tested options might include: * Using `Array.prototype.map()` or `Array.prototype.filter()` instead of for loops. * Utilizing modern libraries like Ramda or Purescript, which provide functional programming abstractions and can be more expressive than traditional methods. * Leveraging native web workers or WebAssembly for performance-critical code. Keep in mind that the choice of iteration method depends on specific requirements, such as performance, readability, maintainability, and compatibility with existing libraries or frameworks.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.forEach vs Lodash forEach
native for loop vs Array.prototype.forEach vs lodash forEach
lodash.each vs Array.forEach vs jQuery.each vs for - inline code
lodash.foreach vs for-of vs array.forEach
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?