Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loopxxxxgun

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; const length = values.length; for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to iterate over an array of objects: using the `_.forEach` method from the Lodash library, and a traditional `for` loop (also known as "native" iteration).

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash `.forEach`**: This option uses the `_.` notation to access the Lodash library, and then calls the `forEach` method on the array of objects (`values`). The callback function passed to `forEach` increments a counter whenever it encounters an object with a non-null `a` property.
2. **Native `for` loop**: This option uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array of objects (`values`). It decrements a counter variable for each iteration, and also checks if the current object has a non-null `a` property.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash `.forEach`**

Pros:

* More concise code
* Less prone to off-by-one errors or index out-of-bounds issues
* Can be more readable, especially for those familiar with functional programming concepts

Cons:

* Requires the Lodash library to be included, which may add extra overhead
* May have slower performance due to the overhead of the Lodash library

**Native `for` loop**

Pros:

* No additional dependencies (e.g., Lodash library)
* Can potentially be faster, as it avoids the overhead of a library function call

Cons:

* More error-prone, especially if not written carefully
* May require more code to achieve the same functionality

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and functional programming. The `.forEach` method is one of its most commonly used functions.

In this benchmark, Lodash is included via a CDN link (`https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js`). This allows the `_.forEach` function to be accessed directly from the code without requiring additional setup or imports.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or `let`/`const` declarations. However, it does use the `var`, `function`, and `if` statements in its code snippets, which are part of the traditional JavaScript syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to iterating over arrays of objects include:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach` directly on the array (without Lodash)
* Using `for...of` loop with `Array.from()` to create an iterator
* Using a custom iteration function or algorithm
* Using a different data structure, such as a map or set, if possible

Keep in mind that the choice of iteration approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loopxxxxgun (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

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):