Benchmark: For vs prototype loop

Script Preparation code:

var wikiEntry = 'The edible fig is one of the first plants that was cultivated by humans. Nine subfossil figs of a parthenocarpic (and therefore sterile) type dating to about 9400–9200 BC were found in the early Neolithic village Gilgal I (in the Jordan Valley, 13 km north of Jericho). The find predates the domestication of wheat, barley, and legumes, and may thus be the first known instance of agriculture. It is proposed that this sterile but desirable type was planted and cultivated intentionally, one thousand years before the next crops were domesticated (wheat and rye).[14] Figs were widespread in ancient Greece, and their cultivation was described by both Aristotle and Theophrastus. Aristotle noted that as in animal sexes, figs have individuals of two kinds, one (the cultivated fig) that bears fruit, and one (the wild caprifig) that assists the other to bear fruit. Further, Aristotle recorded that the fruits of the wild fig contain psenes (fig wasps); these begin life as larvae, and the adult psen splits its skin (pupa) and flies out of the fig to find and enter a cultivated fig, saving it from dropping. Theophrastus observed that just as date palms have male and female flowers, and that farmers (from the East) help by scattering dust from the male on to the female, and as a male fish releases his milt over the females eggs, so Greek farmers tie wild figs to cultivated trees. They do not say directly that figs reproduce sexually, however.[15] Figs were also a common food source for the Romans. Cato the Elder, in his c. 160 BC De Agri Cultura, lists several strains of figs grown at the time he wrote his handbook: the Mariscan, African, Herculanean, Saguntine, and the black Tellanian (De agri cultura, ch. 8). The fruits were used, among other things, to fatten geese for the production of a precursor of foie gras. It was cultivated from Afghanistan to Portugal, also grown in Pithoragarh in the Kumaon hills of India. From the 15th century onwards, it was grown in areas including Northern Europe and the New World.[3] In the 16th century, Cardinal Reginald Pole introduced fig trees to Lambeth Palace in London. In 1769, Spanish missionaries led by Junipero Serra brought the first figs to California. The Mission variety, which they cultivated, is still popular.[16] The fact that it is parthenocarpic (self-pollinating) made it an ideal cultivar for introduction. The Kadota cultivar is even older, being mentioned by the Roman naturalist Pliny in the 1st century A.D.[17] Introduction to California[edit] As Californias population grew, especially after the gold rush, a number of other varieties were brought to California by individuals and nurserymen from the East Coast of the United States and from France and England, and by the end of the 19th century, it became apparent that California had potential for being a great fig-producing state with its Mediterranean climate and a latitude of 38 degrees, lining San Francisco up with Smyrna, Turkey. G. P. Rixford first brought true Smyrna figs to California in 1880. The effort was amplified by the San Francisco Bulletin Company, which sought to bring new varieties from Smyrna to California and distribute the cuttings to the Bulletins subscribers, with the expectation that the subscribers would report back which varieties were most fit for California or regions of California. In 1881, some 14,000 cuttings were shipped in good condition to California and distributed to Bulletin Company subscribers as promised. However, not one of the trees planted produced a single mature fruit.[3] George Roeding concluded this was due to the lack of pollination since the insect pollinator was not present in California.[16] After a couple of failed attempts, wild fig trees carrying fig wasps were successfully introduced to California on April 6, 1899 to allow for fruit production of Smyrna-type figs.[3][15] The most popular variety of Smyrna-type fig is Calimyrna, a name combining California and Smyrna. The variety itself, however, is not one produced through a breeding program, but it is from one of the cuttings brought to California in the latter part of the 19th century. It is identical to the Lob Injir variety that has been grown in Turkey for many centuries.[17]';
var testArray = wikiEntry.split(' ');

Tests:

forEach
testArray.forEach(function(object, index){ console.log(object); });
for loop
for(var i = 0, len = testArray.length; i < len; ++i) { console.log(testArray[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
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 benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using a traditional `for` loop versus an array method (`forEach`) to iterate over an array of strings.

**Options Compared**

* `for` loop
* `forEach` (array method)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **For Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ More control over iteration, including indexing.
		+ Can be more efficient in certain scenarios.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual incrementing or decrementing of the loop variable.
2. **ForEach (Array Method)**
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies iteration and eliminates manual index management.
		+ Often considered more readable and maintainable.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur overhead due to function call and context creation.

**Library and Syntax**

The `forEach` method is a built-in JavaScript array method that iterates over an array, executing the provided callback function for each element. In this benchmark, we're using it as a replacement for a traditional `for` loop.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Memory Usage**: The `forEach` method might consume more memory due to the creation of an additional context (the function call), whereas the `for` loop only uses a single variable.
* **Cacheability**: In some cases, the `for` loop might benefit from cache optimization due to its simplicity and lack of function calls.

**Alternatives**

If you prefer or need alternative ways to iterate over arrays in JavaScript, consider:

1. **map()**: Similar to `forEach`, but returns an array with transformed values.
2. **filter()**: Applies a predicate function to each element, returning an array with filtered elements.
3. **reduce()**: Accumulates values by applying a reduction function to each element.

Keep in mind that the choice of iteration method depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

For vs prototype loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs for loop

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach

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):