Benchmark: result from arr: map vs map lamda vs for loop

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
	arr[i] = i;
}

function someFn(val) {
	return val + val;
}
let output = new Array(arr.length);

Tests:

map
output = arr.map(someFn)
map lamda
output = arr.map((val, idx) => { return val + val; })
for loop
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { output[i] = someFn(arr[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
map
map lamda
for loop

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 JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing three different approaches to map a function over an array:

1. `output = arr.map(someFn)`
2. `output = arr.map((val, idx) => {\r\n\treturn val + val;\r\n})`
3. `for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {\r\n output[i] = someFn(arr[i]); \r\n}`

The first approach uses the `.map()` method with a callback function (`someFn`). The second approach also uses the `.map()` method, but with an arrow function that takes two arguments: `val` and `idx`. The third approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches:

* **.map() with callback**: This approach uses the `.map()` method with a callback function, which applies the provided function to each element in the array.
* **.map() with arrow function**: This approach uses the `.map()` method with an arrow function, which is a concise way of defining small functions.
* **Traditional for loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **.map() with callback**:
	+ Pros: Concise, easy to read, and well-suited for simple transformations.
	+ Cons: May be less efficient than other approaches, as it creates a new array.
* **.map() with arrow function**:
	+ Pros: Similar to the previous approach, but more concise and expressive.
	+ Cons: Also may be less efficient than other approaches.
* **Traditional for loop**:
	+ Pros: Can be more efficient than other approaches, as it avoids creating a new array.
	+ Cons: More verbose and harder to read than the other two approaches.

**Library usage**

None of the provided code uses any external libraries. The `.map()` method is built-in to JavaScript arrays.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The second approach uses an arrow function, which is a shorthand way of defining small functions in JavaScript. Arrow functions were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a concise way to define functions that don't require their own `this` context.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This method iterates over an array using a callback function, but it doesn't return a new array.
* **Closures**: You could use closures (functions that have access to their own scope) to create an efficient transformation function.
* **Native Web Workers**: If you're targeting modern browsers, you could use native Web Workers to parallelize the computation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as concise or readable as the provided approaches, but they can provide different trade-offs in terms of performance and efficiency.

Related benchmarks:

result from arr: map vs map lamda vs for loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: map vs map lamda vs for loop

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

map

map lamda

for loop

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):