Benchmark: _.forEach() vs. Array.prototype.forEach()

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = {
    energy: 1872,
    energyCapacity: 3000,
    id: "62d025c56c1adefe8e6b2a29",
    room: "W27S33",
    ticksToRegeneration: 256,
};
var b = {
    energy: 2788,
    energyCapacity: 3000,
    id: "62d2b653d3c15040a80f71ff",
    room: "W55N22",
    ticksToRegeneration: 3,
};
var c = {
    energy: 2344,
    energyCapacity: 3000,
    id: "62d1da533b55051ef568ff22",
    room: "W10S99",
    ticksToRegeneration: 188,
};
var array = [a, b, c];

Tests:

_.forEach
_.forEach(array, (value, index) => { console.log(JSON.stringify(value)) })
array.forEach
array.forEach((value, index) => { console.log(JSON.stringify(value)) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.forEach
array.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.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to iterate over an array: Lodash's `_.forEach` and the built-in `Array.prototype.forEach`. The test case uses these functions to log the contents of three objects (`a`, `b`, and `c`) in the array, converted to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify`.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. Lodash's `_forEach` (with optional callback function)
2. Built-in `Array.prototype.forEach` (with optional callback function)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash's _forEach`:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be used with objects, as shown in the benchmark definition.
		+ May be more concise and readable for some developers.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires Lodash to be included as a dependency (as seen in the `Html Preparation Code` section).
		+ May add overhead due to the inclusion of an external library.
2. **Built-in `Array.prototype.forEach`:
	* Pros:
		+ Does not require any external libraries or dependencies.
		+ Is a part of the standard JavaScript API, making it more predictable and consistent across browsers.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less concise or readable for some developers who are not familiar with this specific API.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a lot of functions to make common tasks easier. The `_forEach` function in the benchmark definition is part of the Lodash library, which allows users to iterate over arrays and objects using a more functional programming style.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark (e.g., async/await, Promises, etc.).

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to use an alternative approach for the same test case, you could consider using other libraries like `underscore.js` or `ramda`, which also provide similar iteration functions. Alternatively, if you prefer a more functional programming style without using any external libraries, you could write your own custom loop function.

Keep in mind that using a built-in JavaScript API like `Array.prototype.forEach` will be faster and more predictable than using an external library like Lodash, especially since the latter requires additional overhead due to its inclusion.

Related benchmarks:

_.forEach() vs. Array.prototype.forEach() (version: 0)

...for objects

Comparing performance of: _.forEach vs array.forEach

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.forEach

array.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):