Benchmark: native for vs lodash times

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var totalTimes = 500;

Tests:

native
var count = 0; for (var i = 0; i < totalTimes; i++) { count++; }
lodash.times
var count = 0; _.times( totalTimes, function() { count++; } )
lodash.times arrow
var count = 0; _.times( totalTimes, () => count++, )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash.times
lodash.times arrow

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 provided benchmark and its components.

**Overview**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three approaches: native JavaScript for loop, Lodash's `times` function, and an arrow function version of Lodash's `times`. The test case uses a simple counter increment operation repeated a fixed number of times (500 iterations).

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

* **Script Preparation Code**: This code is executed before the benchmark. In this case, it initializes a variable `totalTimes` to 500.
* **Html Preparation Code**: This code is also executed before the benchmark and loads Lodash version 4.17.21 from a CDN.

The benchmark definition itself consists of three test cases:

1. **Native for loop**:
```javascript
var count = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < totalTimes; i++) {
  count++;
}
```
This test case uses a traditional for loop to increment the `count` variable.

2. **Lodash.times**:
```javascript
_.times(totalTimes, function() {
  count++;
});
```
This test case uses Lodash's `times` function, which executes a provided function (in this case, a no-op function that increments the `count`) for the specified number of times.

3. **Lodash.times arrow**:
```javascript
_.times(totalTimes, () => count++);
```
This test case is similar to the previous one but uses an arrow function instead of a traditional function expression.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares three options:

1. Native JavaScript for loop: This approach uses a traditional for loop to iterate over a fixed number of iterations.
2. Lodash's `times` function: This approach uses a external library (Lodash) to execute a provided function for a specified number of times.
3. Lodash.times arrow: This approach is similar to the previous one but uses an arrow function instead of a traditional function expression.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Native for loop**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, lightweight, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the for loop itself.
2. **Lodash.times**:
	* Pros: Provides a convenient way to execute a function multiple times without having to write a custom loop.
	* Cons: Requires an external dependency (Lodash), may have performance overhead due to the library's functionality.
3. **Lodash.times arrow**:
	* Pros: Similar to Lodash's `times` function but with the added benefit of being more concise and readable.
	* Cons: Still requires an external dependency (Lodash) and may have performance overhead.

**Library usage**
In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library to provide a convenient way to execute a function multiple times. The `_.times` function is a key part of the Lodash API and allows users to iterate over a fixed number of iterations without having to write a custom loop.

**Special JS features or syntax**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, only standard JavaScript language constructs.

Related benchmarks:

native for vs lodash times (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash.times vs lodash.times arrow

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash.times

lodash.times arrow

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):