Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
traditional for loop vs for ... of
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
traditional for loop vs for ... of
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
traditional for loop
const arr = Array(10000).fill(1); let sum = 0; for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { sum += i; }
for ... of
const arr = Array(10000).fill(1); let sum = 0; for (const el of arr) { sum += el; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
traditional for loop
for ... of
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is essentially a script that defines a simple task to be performed by different programming approaches. In this case, we have two test cases: 1. A traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`i`) that increments from 0 to the length of an array. 2. A `for...of` loop that iterates over the same array without an explicit index variable. **Options Compared** The options being compared are: * Traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`i`) * `for...of` loop (a newer, more concise syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015) **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Traditional `for` Loop** * Pros: + Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with the old syntax. + Allows direct access to the index variable (`i`) if needed. * Cons: + Less concise and expressive than `for...of`. + May lead to off-by-one errors if not used carefully. 2. **`for...of` Loop** * Pros: + More concise and readable than traditional `for` loops. + Eliminates the need for an index variable, reducing the chance of off-by-one errors. * Cons: + May be less familiar to developers who are not yet comfortable with this new syntax. **Libraries and Special JS Features** Neither test case uses any libraries or special JavaScript features beyond what's standard in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `for...of` loop is simply a more concise way of iterating over an array without having to declare a separate index variable. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options: 1. **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This method can be used as an alternative to both traditional `for` loops and `for...of` loops. 2. **Arrow functions with Array.prototype.forEach()**: You could also use arrow functions (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) with the `forEach()` method for a more concise and expressive solution. In conclusion, MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps you compare the performance of traditional `for` loops versus the newer, more concise `for...of` loop. While both approaches have their pros and cons, `for...of` is generally considered a better choice due to its readability and reduced chance of off-by-one errors.
Related benchmarks:
pow vs for-loop
foreach vs for vs for in
foreach vs for..of
foreach vs for...of
For loop vs <Array>.forEach() vs for...of loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?