Benchmark: Speed Test : _.each vs forEach

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [1,2,3]

Tests:

_.each
_.each(arr, (value, index) => { console.log(value) })
forEach
arr.forEach((value, index) => { console.log(value) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.each
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.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two JavaScript methods: `_.each` and `forEach`. Both methods are used to iterate over an array and perform an action on each element.

**`.each` method**

The `.each` method is part of the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript. The method takes two arguments: the first is the array to iterate over, and the second is a callback function that will be executed for each element in the array. The callback function receives two arguments: the value of the current element and its index.

The benchmark test uses `_.each` with an example array `[1, 2, 3]`, logging each element to the console using a callback function.

**`.forEach` method**

The `.forEach` method is a built-in JavaScript method that also takes two arguments: the first is the array to iterate over, and the second is a callback function that will be executed for each element in the array. The callback function receives two arguments: the value of the current element and its index.

In this benchmark, `forEach` is used with the same example array `[1, 2, 3]`, logging each element to the console using a callback function.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two methods in Chrome 98 on a Windows Desktop. The results show that:

* `.each` performs better than `.forEach`, with an execution rate of approximately 59118 executions per second compared to 36809 executions per second for `.forEach`.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros of using `.each` over `.forEach`:

* Can be more predictable, as the order of elements is guaranteed (in contrast to `forEach`, where elements are executed in arbitrary order)
* May be more efficient due to optimized internal implementation

Cons of using `.each` over `.forEach`:

* Requires importing an external library (Lodash) and using its syntax
* May not provide a significant performance advantage for small arrays or simple operations

Pros of using `.forEach` over `.each`:

* Built-in, so no additional import is required
* More concise syntax, which can be beneficial for shorter code snippets

Cons of using `.forEach` over `.each`:

* Execution order is arbitrary, which may lead to unexpected behavior in certain scenarios
* May not be optimized internally by the browser or JavaScript engine

**Considerations**

When choosing between `.each` and `.forEach`, consider the trade-offs between predictability, performance, and simplicity. If you need more control over element iteration order or require a significant performance advantage, `.each` might be a better choice. Otherwise, `.forEach` is often sufficient.

Other alternatives to `.each` and `.forEach` include:

* `map()`: Returns an array of new values created by applying a given function to each element in the original array.
* `reduce()`: Applies a reduction function to each element in an array, accumulating a single value from all elements.
* Loops (e.g., `for`, `while`): Can be used for manual iteration over arrays, but may not provide the same level of abstraction or performance benefits as `.each` and `.forEach`.

Related benchmarks:

Speed Test : _.each vs forEach (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: _.each vs forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.each

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):