Benchmark: lodash forEach vs native for and forEach v3

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(1000).fill(0);

Tests:

lodash.forEach
let count = 0; _.forEach(arr, (v,i) => { if (v != null) { count++; } })
native for
let count = 0; for (let i = 0, length = arr.length; i < length; i++) { if (arr[i] != null) { count++; } }
native forEach
let count = 0; arr.forEach((v,i) => { if (v != null) { count++; } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native for
native forEach

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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches: `lodash.forEach`, `native for`, and `native forEach`. The test case iterates over an array of 1000 elements, checking each element for null values and incrementing a counter if it's not null. The goal is to determine which approach yields the highest performance.

**Options Compared**

The three options compared are:

1. **_lodash.forEach**: A utility function from the Lodash library that iterates over an array using a callback function.
2. **Native For Loop**: A traditional for loop that iterates over an array using indices and conditional checks.
3. **Native `forEach` Method**: The built-in `forEach` method of JavaScript arrays, which also iterates over elements using a callback function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **_lodash.forEach_**
	* Pros:
		+ Convenient and readable syntax.
		+ No need to worry about indices or bounds checking.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur overhead due to library dependencies and function call costs.
2. **Native For Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ Low-level control over iteration and optimization opportunities.
		+ No external library dependencies.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose syntax can lead to readability issues.
		+ Requires manual bounds checking and indexing.
3. **Native `forEach` Method**
	* Pros:
		+ Familiar syntax for many developers.
		+ Optimized for iteration by the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons:
		+ May have performance characteristics similar to `_lodash.forEach_`.
		+ Less control over iteration details.

**Library and Syntax**

The test case uses Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript. The `_.forEach` function is used as the benchmarking target.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating performance benchmarks like this one, consider factors such as:

* Code size and complexity
* Number of iterations and iterations per second
* Platform-specific optimizations and dependencies

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for iteration, consider the following options:

1. **For...of Loop**: A modern iteration syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2017.
2. **Async Iterators**: A way to iterate over arrays asynchronously using `async/await` syntax.
3. **Custom iterators**: Creating custom iterator functions or classes can provide fine-grained control over iteration.

These alternatives might offer better performance, readability, or usability for specific use cases. However, their adoption and support may vary across different browsers and environments.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs native for and forEach v3 (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native for vs native forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native for

native forEach

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):