Benchmark: Array.prototype.every vs _.every

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Tests:

Array.prototype.forEach
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; params.every(param => !!param);
lodash each
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; _.every(params, param => !!param);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.forEach
lodash each

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 benchmark and its components.

**Overview**
The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark for comparing two approaches: `Array.prototype.every` (native JavaScript) vs _.every (from the Lodash library). The test case uses an array of strings, numbers, and booleans to exercise both functions.

**Options compared**

1. **Native `Array.prototype.every`**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if all elements in an array pass a test provided as a callback function.
2. **Lodash's `_every`**: This function is part of the Lodash library and provides a similar functionality to the native `every` method, but with additional features like support for async iterations.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Native `Array.prototype.every`**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, performs well in basic use cases, and has a small footprint (only 12 bytes).
	* Cons: May not be as flexible or powerful as Lodash's `_every`, especially with more complex iteration logic.
2. **Lodash's `_every`**:
	* Pros: Provides additional features like support for async iterations, iteratee functions, and utility methods. Can also handle array elements that aren't iterables (like null or undefined).
	* Cons: Adds a small overhead due to the library itself (about 15KB) and might perform slightly worse in basic use cases.

**Other considerations**

1. **Performance differences**: The test results show significant performance differences between the two approaches, with Lodash's `_every` being about 55 times slower than native `Array.prototype.every`. This is likely due to the overhead of the library.
2. **Code readability and maintainability**: Using a library like Lodash can make code more readable and maintainable by providing a standardized way of handling iteration logic.

**Library explanation**

In this case, the library used is Lodash, which is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and functional programming. The `_every` function is part of the core Lodash library and provides a robust implementation of the "every" algorithm.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.every vs _.every (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.forEach vs lodash each

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.forEach

lodash each

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):