Benchmark: Lodash forEach vs native forEach loop

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var rows = [
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
  {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3},
];

Tests:

lodash
_.forEach(rows, function(row) { return row.a + row.b + row.c; });
native
rows.forEach(function(row) { return row.a + row.b + row.c; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

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 the world of JavaScript benchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run microbenchmarks for JavaScript code. The provided benchmark compares two approaches: using Lodash's `forEach` function versus the native `forEach` loop.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **Lodash's `forEach`**: This approach uses Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript, to iterate over an array. Specifically, it uses the `forEach` function to execute a callback function on each element of the `rows` array.
2. **Native `forEach` loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for...of` loop or a simple `forEach` loop (not part of the ES standard) to iterate over the `rows` array and execute a callback function on each element.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `forEach`:**

Pros:

* Concise and readable code
* Lodash provides additional utility functions that can be useful in other parts of your code
* Can be faster than native loops for large datasets

Cons:

* Requires an external library (Lodash)
* May have overhead due to the library's initialization and garbage collection

**Native `forEach` loop:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies or overhead
* Often faster and more efficient than Lodash's `forEach`
* Directly integrated into JavaScript, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead

Cons:

* Can be less readable for developers unfamiliar with native loops
* May require additional setup or maintenance for large datasets

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a utility library that provides various functions to simplify common programming tasks. In this benchmark, it's used specifically for its `forEach` function, which allows iterating over an array and executing a callback function on each element.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided benchmark code. However, note that some older browsers may not support modern features like `for...of` loops or the `let` keyword, which is used in the native loop example.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to iterating over an array and executing a callback function include:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach.call()**: This method uses the `forEach` method on the `array` object and calls it with a callback function as its argument.
2. **Array.prototype.map()`: While not strictly equivalent, this method can be used for simple transformations by returning a value from each element's callback function.
3. **For loops with index variables**: A traditional loop that uses an index variable to access elements in the array.

Each of these approaches has its own trade-offs and performance characteristics, which may influence the choice of which one to use depending on the specific requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash forEach vs native forEach loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

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):