Benchmark: native for vs lodash times vs native while

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++, )
native while i++
var count = 0; do { i++; count++; } while (i < totalTimes);
native while ++i
var count = 0; do { ++i; ++count; } while (i < totalTimes);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
lodash.times
lodash.times arrow
native while i++
native while ++i

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

native while ++i

37.0M/s

native while i++

36.7M/s

lodash.times

1.2M/s

native

911K/s

lodash.times arrow

333K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ native while ++i	36,962,904 Ops/sec
native while i++	36,713,500 Ops/sec
lodash.times	1,237,643 Ops/sec
native	911,032 Ops/sec
lodash.times arrow	333,212 Ops/sec

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, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website where users can create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests the execution time of four different approaches to increment a variable:

1. Native for loop (i++)
2. Lodash `times` function with a callback
3. Lodash `times` function with an arrow function
4. Native while loop (i++)

**Approaches Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four approaches in terms of execution time.

1. **Native for Loop**: This approach uses a traditional for loop to increment a variable.
2. **Lodash `times` Function with Callback**: Lodash provides a `times` function that allows you to execute a callback function a specified number of times. In this case, the callback increments the variable.
3. **Lodash `times` Function with Arrow Function**: This approach uses an arrow function as the callback in the Lodash `times` function.
4. **Native While Loop**: This approach uses a while loop to increment the variable.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each approach:

1. **Native for Loop**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and well-supported by most JavaScript engines.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to unnecessary checks and iterations.
2. **Lodash `times` Function with Callback**:
	* Pros: Convenient and efficient way to execute a function multiple times.
	* Cons: Requires Lodash library, which may introduce additional overhead.
3. **Lodash `times` Function with Arrow Function**:
	* Pros: Similar to the previous approach but uses an arrow function, which can be more concise.
	* Cons: Still requires Lodash library and may have similar performance characteristics.
4. **Native While Loop**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than for loops in certain cases, especially when dealing with large arrays or iterative tasks.
	* Cons: May be less intuitive for some developers due to its use of a conditional loop.

**Library and Special Features**

The Lodash library is used in two out of the four approaches:

1. **Lodash `times` Function**: A utility function that allows you to execute a callback function multiple times.
2. **Arrow Function**: An arrow function is used as the callback in one of the approaches, providing a concise way to increment the variable.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the following factors:

* Performance: Native for loops and while loops may be more efficient than Lodash functions, but only if the loop iterations are small.
* Code readability: Simple for loops can be easier to understand than more complex while loops or Lodash functions.
* Maintainability: Using a library like Lodash can make your code more maintainable by providing reusable utility functions.

**Alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash, you can consider the following alternatives:

1. **V8's `Array.prototype.fill` method**: This method allows you to set all elements of an array to a specified value.
2. **Native JavaScript `forEach` method**: This method allows you to execute a callback function on each element of an array.
3. **Closures**: You can use closures to achieve similar results without using Lodash.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches may be small and depend on specific use cases.

native for vs lodash times vs native while (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `native vs lodash.times vs lodash.times arrow vs native while i++ vs native while ++i`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

native

lodash.times

lodash.times arrow

native while i++

native while ++i

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

native for vs lodash times vs native while (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash.times vs lodash.times arrow vs native while i++ vs native while ++i

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

native

lodash.times

lodash.times arrow

native while i++

native while ++i

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `native vs lodash.times vs lodash.times arrow vs native while i++ vs native while ++i`