Benchmark: Array loop vs foreach simplified

Script Preparation code:

   var arr = [];
    for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
      arr[i] = i;
    }
  
    function someFn(i) {
      return i * 3 * 8;
    }

Tests:

foreach
arr.forEach(someFn)
for
for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) { someFn(arr[i]); }
map
arr.map(item => someFn(item))
foreach2
arr.forEach( (v)=> v*3*8 );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
foreach
for
map
foreach2

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 what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different ways to iterate over an array and apply a function to each element:

1. `arr.forEach(someFn)`: This uses the `forEach` method, which executes the provided callback function once for each element in the array.
2. `for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) { someFn(arr[i]); }`: This is a traditional `for` loop that iterates over the array elements using their indices.
3. `arr.map(item => someFn(item))`: This uses the `map` method, which creates a new array by applying the provided callback function to each element in the original array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* `forEach`
* Traditional `for` loop
* `map`

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* `forEach`:
	+ Pros: concise, easy to read, and maintain.
	+ Cons: may not be suitable for arrays with non-numerical elements (e.g., strings), as it expects the callback function to return a value. Additionally, this method creates an array of results if you're trying to transform data without mutating the original array.
* Traditional `for` loop:
	+ Pros: flexible and allows control over iteration variables, indexing, and conditional statements. However, it can be verbose and more error-prone.
	+ Cons: requires manual indexing, which can lead to off-by-one errors or other issues if not handled carefully.
* `map`:
	+ Pros: concise and efficient for transforming data without mutating the original array.
	+ Cons: creates a new array with transformed elements, which may consume more memory. Also, it assumes that each element in the input array has a value that can be passed to the callback function.

**Library and Special JS feature**

There is no library mentioned in the benchmark definition or the test cases provided. However, if you were to use libraries like Lodash or Ramda, they might provide alternative implementations for these functions (e.g., `lodash.forEach`, `ramda.map`).

**Special JS features**

There are no special JavaScript features (like async/await, generators, or promises) used in the benchmark definition.

Related benchmarks:

Array loop vs foreach simplified (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: foreach vs for vs map vs foreach2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

foreach

for

map

foreach2

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):