Benchmark: lodash.each vs Object.forEach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]
var res = 0;
var f = (v,i)=> {res+=i}

Tests:

lodash.each
_.each(value, f)
native
value.forEach(f)
for loop
var lres = value.length for (var i=0; i<lres; i++){ f(null, i) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.each
native
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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, the different approaches, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three approaches for iterating over an array:

1. Using Lodash's `each` method
2. Using the built-in `forEach` method on native JavaScript arrays (i.e., not using a library like Lodash)
3. Using a manual loop (a traditional, non-library-based approach)

**Lodash Library**

The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.16.0, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript. The `each` method in Lodash iterates over an array and performs a callback function on each element.

**Approach Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of the three approaches:

1. **Lodash `.each` Method**: This approach uses Lodash's `each` method to iterate over the array. The callback function passed to `each` is executed for each element in the array.
2. **Native `.forEach` Method**: This approach uses the built-in `forEach` method on native JavaScript arrays. The callback function passed to `forEach` is also executed for each element in the array.
3. **Manual Loop**: This approach uses a traditional loop (a `for` loop) to iterate over the array, calling the callback function for each element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash `.each` Method**:
	* Pros: concise and expressive code, eliminates boilerplate for common use cases.
	* Cons: adds external library dependency, might be slower due to overhead of Lodash.
2. **Native `.forEach` Method**:
	* Pros: fast, efficient, and widely supported (native JavaScript).
	* Cons: requires more code for common iterations, can lead to " callback hell" if not used carefully.
3. **Manual Loop**:
	* Pros: lightweight, no external library dependencies, easy to understand for beginners.
	* Cons: verbose, error-prone, and might be slower due to the overhead of the loop.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses Chrome 64 as the browser, which is a relatively modern version. This might impact the results, especially if the benchmark is running on older browsers or versions.
* The test uses a small array with three elements, which might not be representative of larger arrays or more complex iterations.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches, consider:

1. **ES6 `for...of` Loop**: A modern, concise way to iterate over arrays without using a library.
2. **Other utility libraries**: Depending on your specific use case, other libraries like Moment.js or Immutable.js might be more suitable.

In summary, the benchmark provides a fair comparison of three common approaches for iterating over JavaScript arrays: Lodash's `each` method, native `.forEach` method, and a manual loop. While each approach has its pros and cons, the results will help you decide which approach is best suited for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: lodash.each vs native vs for loop

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.each

native

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):