Benchmark: lodash.each vs Object.forEach

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

lodash.each
_.each(value, function(v,i) {})
native
value.forEach(function(v,i) {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.each
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/133.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.each	57403780.0 Ops/sec
native	127008960.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested**

MeasuringThat.net provides a platform for comparing the performance of different JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, two test cases are being compared: `lodash.each` and `Object.forEach`. The benchmark being measured is the execution time of a loop that iterates over an array using each of these methods.

**Options compared**

The main options being compared are:

1. **_.each**: This is the Lodash implementation of the `.each` method, which applies a function to each element in an array.
2. **Object.forEach**: This is the built-in `forEach` method on arrays in JavaScript, which also applies a function to each element in an array.

**Pros and Cons**

**_.each (Lodash)**

Pros:

* Lodash is a widely-used library that provides a robust set of utilities for functional programming.
* The implementation of `.each` is likely to be optimized for performance.

Cons:

* It adds extra overhead due to the use of a external library.
* There may be potential issues with caching or memoization.

**Object.forEach (Native JavaScript)**

Pros:

* This is the native implementation of `forEach` in JavaScript, which means it's typically faster and more efficient than a third-party library.
* No additional overhead due to using an external library.

Cons:

* May not provide all the same features as Lodash's `.each`, such as handling edge cases or supporting iterators.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between `_.each` and `Object.forEach`, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If speed is critical, `Object.forEach` might be a better choice. However, if you need additional functionality beyond basic iteration, Lodash's `.each` might be more suitable.
* Code readability: Some developers prefer the explicitness of `Object.forEach`, while others find it less readable due to its reliance on the array prototype.
* Maintainability: If you're using a third-party library like Lodash, you'll need to manage dependencies and potential updates.

**Library usage**

The test case uses Lodash's implementation of `.each`. The purpose of this library is to provide a comprehensive set of utility functions for functional programming in JavaScript. In this specific benchmark, it provides an optimized implementation of the `.each` method that can be used instead of the native `forEach` method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these benchmarks. The tests focus on measuring the performance difference between two common iteration methods.

Related benchmarks:

lodash.each vs Object.forEach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.each vs native

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.each

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):