Benchmark: fn forEach - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var fn1 = () => { fn1.num = 0; fn1.num++; }
var fn2 = () => { fn1.num = 0; fn1.num++; }
var fn3 = () => { fn1.num = 0; fn1.num++; }
var fn4 = () => { fn1.num = 0; fn1.num++; }
var fn5 = () => { fn1.num = 0; fn1.num++; }

var fns = [fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4, fn5]

Tests:

direact
fn1(); fn2(); fn3(); fn4(); fn5();
forEach
fns.forEach(fn => fn())
for
for (const fn of fns) fn()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
direact
forEach
for

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.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of three different approaches to iterate over an array of functions in JavaScript: `forEach`, `for` loops, and direct function calls (`direact`). The test cases are designed to measure the execution speed of each approach on a given set of functions.

**Options compared:**

* `forEach`: Uses the built-in `Array.prototype.forEach()` method to iterate over the array of functions.
* `for`: Uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array of functions.
* `direact`: Calls each function directly, one after another, without using any iteration mechanism.

**Pros and cons:**

* `forEach`:
	+ Pros: Simple and concise, uses built-in method, easy to read and maintain.
	+ Cons: May have overhead due to the use of a built-in method, can be slower than direct function calls for large arrays.
* `for` loops:
	+ Pros: Can be faster than `forEach` for large arrays, allows for more control over iteration.
	+ Cons: More verbose and less readable than `forEach`, requires manual array indexing.
* `direact`:
	+ Pros: Fastest approach, eliminates overhead of built-in methods or iteration mechanisms.
	+ Cons: Most verbose and least readable, requires direct function calls without any separation.

**Library and its purpose (if applicable):**

In this benchmark, there is no external library being used. The functions `fn1`, `fn2`, ..., `fn5` are defined within the script preparation code and are not part of any external library.

**Special JS feature or syntax (if applicable):**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The only unusual aspect is that each function increments a shared variable `num`, which may introduce some side effects, but it's not related to any specific JavaScript feature or syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test other iteration approaches, here are a few examples:

* `map()`: Uses the built-in `Array.prototype.map()` method to create a new array with transformed values.
* `reduce()`: Uses the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to reduce an array to a single value.
* `while` loops: Uses a traditional `while` loop to iterate over the array of functions.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach will have its own pros and cons, and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Related benchmarks:

fn forEach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: direact vs forEach vs for

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

direact

forEach

for

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):