Benchmark: ForOf vs Array.Map

Script Preparation code:

var newArray = Array(100000)
    .fill({})
    .map((_, index) => ({
        index
    }));

function withMap(arr) {
    return arr.map(({
        index
    }) => ({
        success: true,
        id: index
    }));
};

function withForOf(arr) {
    const results = [];

    for (const {
            index
        } of arr) {
        results.push({
            success: true,
            id: index
        });
    }

    return results;
};

Tests:

Array.Map
withMap(newArray)
For of
withForOf(newArray)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.Map
For of

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 explaining the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to map over an array: `withMap` and `for...of`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Array.Map**: This method uses a built-in JavaScript function, `Array.prototype.map()`, which applies a given callback function to every element in the array.
2. **For...of Loop**: This approach uses a traditional loop with an iterable (`newArray`) and pushes results into an array.

**Pros and Cons**

**Array.Map:**

Pros:

* Concise and readable code
* Built-in JavaScript function, making it easy to understand and use

Cons:

* May be slower than the `for...of` loop due to overhead of calling a built-in method
* Limited control over iteration process (e.g., no ability to interrupt or modify iteration)

**For...of Loop:**

Pros:

* Provides more control over iteration process, allowing for custom logic and error handling
* Can be faster in certain scenarios due to optimized iteration

Cons:

* Longer and less readable code
* Requires manual management of loop variables and logic

**Library Used**

In the provided benchmark, the `Array.prototype.map()` method is used. This is a built-in JavaScript library that provides an efficient way to transform arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no specific special JS feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* Readability and maintainability of code: `Array.Map` may be a better choice if you prioritize conciseness and readability.
* Performance and control: If you need more control over iteration process or require optimal performance, use the `for...of` loop.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to map over arrays, consider:

1. **Using a library like Lodash**: Lodash provides a `map()` function that can be used as an alternative to built-in JavaScript methods.
2. **Implementing custom mapping logic using recursion or iterative methods**: Depending on your specific use case, you may need to implement custom mapping logic using recursive or iterative approaches.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your project requirements and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

ForOf vs Array.Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.Map vs For of

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.Map

For of

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):