Benchmark: lodash vs for-of-1

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: 9000000
}).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.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is comparing the performance of two approaches: using the `forEach` method from the Lodash library (a popular utility library for JavaScript) versus using a simple `for...of` loop. The benchmark aims to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash's `forEach` method**: This function takes an array as its first argument and applies a callback function to each element in the array.
2. **Simple `for...of` loop**: A traditional looping construct that iterates over an array using a variable (in this case, `element`) and its index.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash's `forEach` method**:
	* Pros: Convenient and easy to use, especially for iterating over arrays with multiple operations.
	* Cons: Adds extra overhead due to the library itself, which might not be necessary for simple iteration cases.
2. **Simple `for...of` loop**:
	* Pros: Lightweight and doesn't introduce any external dependencies (except for basic JavaScript features).
	* Cons: Requires more code and manual memory management (e.g., incrementing a variable).

**Library Used**

The Lodash library is being used to provide the `forEach` method. Lodash is a popular utility library that offers a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark (except for using `let x = 0` to initialize a variable, which is a basic JavaScript feature).

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, some options could be:

* Using `forEach` from the native Array prototype (not Lodash)
* Using `map()` instead of `forEach`
* Implementing your own custom iteration loop using traditional loops and indexing variables
* Testing with a different JavaScript engine or version

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide identical results, as they may have different performance characteristics or requirements.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON includes the script preparation code (`var list = Array.from({ length: 9000000 }).map((value, i) => i)`), which creates a large array of 9 million elements. The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library (version 4.17.5).

The individual test cases are defined as JavaScript code snippets, with each snippet representing a single benchmarking iteration:

1. `lodash.forEach`: Uses the Lodash `forEach` method to iterate over the array and increment a variable (`x`) for each element.
2. `for-of`: Implements a simple `for...of` loop to iterate over the array and increment a variable (`x`) for each element.

The benchmark results show that the `for-of` approach is significantly faster than using Lodash's `forEach` method in this specific case, with an execution rate of 69.92 executions per second compared to 13.27 executions per second, respectively.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs for-of-1 (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):