Benchmark: lodash.each vs Object.forEach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
  value[i] = i;
}

Tests:

lodash.map
_.find(value, (x) => x===500);
native
value.find((x) => x===5000);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.map
native

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the test to be run. In this case, we have two benchmarks:

1. `lodash.each vs Object.forEach`: This benchmark tests the performance difference between using Lodash's `each` function and the built-in `Object.forEach` method.
2. Two individual test cases:
	* `_find(value, (x) => x===500)`: This test case measures the performance of the `_find` function from Lodash when searching for an element in an array that equals 500.
	* `value.find((x) => x===5000)`: This test case measures the performance of the built-in `find` method when searching for an element in an array that equals 5000.

**Options Compared**
The two options being compared are:

1. Lodash's `each` function
2. The built-in `Object.forEach` method

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash's `each` function**: This function is a part of the Lodash library, which provides a wide range of utility functions for JavaScript development. Using `each` can simplify code and make it more concise. However, this may also introduce additional overhead due to the library's complexity.
* **Built-in `Object.forEach` method**: This method is a built-in part of the JavaScript language, making it faster and more lightweight compared to using a third-party library like Lodash.

**Performance Considerations**

The performance difference between these two options depends on various factors, such as:

* The size of the array being processed
* The frequency of iteration
* The complexity of the callback function

In general, the built-in `Object.forEach` method is likely to be faster than using Lodash's `each` function due to its lightweight nature.

**Library and Its Purpose**
The library used in this benchmark is Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:

* Iteration: `each`, `forEach`, `forEachRight`
* Array manipulation: `map`, `find`, `filter`
* Object manipulation: `keys`, `values`, `pairs`

Lodash's purpose is to simplify code and make it more concise, while also providing a robust set of utility functions for common tasks.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**
There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code appears to be standard JavaScript with some additional Lodash functionality.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

* **Array.prototype.forEach**: This method is another built-in option for iterating over arrays in JavaScript.
* **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides similar functions to Lodash, such as `each` and `forEach`.
* **JQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that provides an alternative way of manipulating DOM elements and handling events.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the MeasureThat.net benchmark!

Related benchmarks:

lodash.each vs Object.forEach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.map vs native

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.map

native

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):