Benchmark: Lodash forEach utility

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['a', 'b', 'c'];

Tests:

_.forEach
var a = ''; _.forEach(arr, item => a = a+item)
arr.forEach
var a = ''; arr.forEach(item => a = a+item)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.forEach
arr.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.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance of two JavaScript methods: `_.forEach` from Lodash library and `arr.forEach`. The goal is to compare the execution speed of these two methods on an array of strings.

**Lodash Library**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript. In this benchmark, it's used for its `forEach` function, which is a higher-order function that applies a callback function to each element of an array.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, the only options being compared are:

1. `_.forEach`: The Lodash `forEach` function.
2. `arr.forEach`: The built-in JavaScript `forEach` method on arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**_.forEach (Lodash)**

Pros:

* Provides a consistent and predictable performance since it's a specialized library implementation.
* May be optimized for performance, especially if Lodash has done extensive profiling and tuning.

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead due to the need to load the entire Lodash library.
* May not be as performant as native JavaScript methods due to the additional indirection (i.e., calling into another function).

**arr.forEach (Native JavaScript)**

Pros:

* No extra overhead since it's a built-in method that doesn't require loading an external library.
* Native performance, optimized for specific use cases.

Cons:

* May not be as predictable or consistent due to the implementation details of the native `forEach` method.
* May have different performance characteristics depending on the browser and JavaScript engine used.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is run on a Windows desktop with Chrome 98. The test is executed at a high frequency (110,378,800 times per second), which likely contributes to the accuracy of the results.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require expertise beyond JavaScript basics.

Now, let's look at some alternative benchmarks:

* **Benchmark alternatives:**
	+ `Array.prototype.forEach` (built-in method on arrays)
	+ `Array.prototype.map`, `Array.prototype.filter`, and other array methods to compare performance
	+ Different JavaScript libraries or frameworks that implement their own version of the `forEach` function
	+ Edge cases, such as large datasets or complex data structures

Related benchmarks:

Lodash forEach utility (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.forEach vs arr.forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.forEach

arr.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):