Benchmark: lodash vs for-of

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var list = Array.from({
    length: 50000
}).map((value, i) => i)

Tests:

lodash.forEach
let x = 0 _.forEach(list,(item,index)=>{ x++ })
for-of
let x = 0 for (const element of list) { x++ }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. In this case, we have two individual test cases: `lodash.forEach` and `for-of`. The benchmark is comparing the performance of using Lodash's `forEach` function versus a traditional `for-of` loop in JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code for both tests creates an array of 50,000 elements with incrementing indices:
```javascript
var list = Array.from({ length: 50000 }).map((value, i) => i);
```
This is a simple way to generate a large dataset that can be used as input for the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a link to Lodash's JavaScript library:
```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
```
This library is not necessary for the individual test cases, but it's included as part of the benchmark setup.

**Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. `lodash.forEach`:
```javascript
let x = 0; _.forEach(list,(item,index)=>{ tx++ });
```
This test uses Lodash's `forEach` function to iterate over the array and increment a variable `x`.

2. `for-of`:
```javascript
let x = 0; for (const element of list) { x++ };
```
This test uses a traditional `for-of` loop to iterate over the array and increment a variable `x`.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more. In this case, Lodash's `forEach` function is being used as part of the benchmark.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Neither test uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard language support.

**Comparison**

The two tests are comparing the performance of using Lodash's `forEach` function versus a traditional `for-of` loop in JavaScript. The results will indicate which approach is faster for this specific use case.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash's `forEach`**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to write, especially for those familiar with Lodash.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the library's functions.
2. **Traditional `for-of` loop**
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and efficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code and manual iteration.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite these tests using alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. Use `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of Lodash's `forEach`.
2. Use a traditional `while` loop or recursive function for iteration.
3. Consider using other libraries like Ramda or Liskell for functional programming.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches will depend on the specific use case and environment.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs for-of (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs for-of

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

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):