Benchmark: native for vs lodash times s

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, library usage, special JavaScript features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three approaches: native (JavaScript built-in), `_times` from Lodash, and an arrow function-based version of `_times`. The goal is to measure which approach yields the best performance.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Native**: This test case uses a simple `for` loop with incrementing a variable (`count`) 500 times.
2. **Lodash.times**: This test case uses Lodash's `_times` function to iterate 500 times, with each iteration incrementing the `count` variable.
3. **Lodash.times arrow**: This test case is similar to the previous one but uses an arrow function instead of a regular function.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a dependency, specifically its `_times` function. The version of Lodash being used is 4.17.21.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They are straightforward, simple loops with incrementing variables.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here's a brief comparison of the three approaches:

* **Native**: This approach uses a built-in JavaScript `for` loop, which is the most straightforward and efficient way to iterate over a range. However, it may be slower due to the overhead of the JavaScript engine.
* **Lodash.times**: Lodash provides a convenient function for repeating iterations, but it may introduce additional overhead compared to the native approach.
* **Lodash.times arrow**: This version uses an arrow function, which is a concise way to define small functions. It's likely to be faster than the regular function-based version due to its compact syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native**:
	+ Pros: Fastest, most efficient.
	+ Cons: May have more overhead compared to Lodash approaches.
* **Lodash.times**:
	+ Pros: Convenient, easy to use.
	+ Cons: May introduce additional overhead.
* **Lodash.times arrow**:
	+ Pros: Concise, potentially faster than regular function-based version.
	+ Cons: Less intuitive for some developers.

**Other Considerations**

Other considerations when evaluating these approaches:

* Code readability and maintainability: Lodash's `_times` function may be more readable and maintainable due to its concise syntax.
* Library dependencies: Using an external library like Lodash introduces additional dependency management and versioning concerns.
* Platform and browser compatibility: The benchmark results assume a Windows 10 environment, but performance differences may occur on other platforms or browsers.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases or explore alternative approaches:

* **Use a different iteration method**: Try using `Array.prototype.forEach()` or `Set` instead of `_times`.
* **Explore different libraries**: Compare performance with other iteration libraries, such as `console.iterate()` or `fibers`.
* **Incorporate platform and browser variations**: Add test cases for Linux, macOS, or mobile devices to see if performance differences occur across platforms.

Keep in mind that these are just suggestions, and the specific requirements of your project will dictate which approaches to explore.

Related benchmarks:

native for vs lodash times s (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):