Benchmark: Array.prototype.forEach vs _.each test

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Tests:

Array.prototype.forEach
var params = Array(1000000).fill(); var index = 0; params.forEach(param => index++);
lodash each
var params = Array(1000000).fill(); var index = 0; _.each(params, param => index++);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.forEach
lodash each

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.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches: using the `Array.prototype.forEach` method and using Lodash's `_.each` function to iterate over an array.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Array.prototype.forEach**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that iterates over an array and executes a callback function for each element.
2. **Lodash's _.each**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library, which provides a way to iterate over arrays in a more functional programming style.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Array.prototype.forEach**:
	+ Pros:
		- Native JavaScript implementation, optimized for performance.
		- Simple to use and understand.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be less flexible than other iteration methods (e.g., using `for...of` loops).
		- May not support all edge cases or advanced features.
* **Lodash's _.each**:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and customizable compared to native `forEach`.
		- Supports more advanced features, such as callback functions and iteration control.
	+ Cons:
		- External dependency on Lodash library, which may add overhead.
		- Can be less optimized for performance than native JavaScript implementations.

**Library:**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and functional programming. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.each` function is used to iterate over the array in a more functional programming style.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript has many advanced features and syntax elements that can impact performance, such as closures, async/await, and Web Workers. MeasureThat.net likely considers these factors when optimizing its benchmarking framework.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark test, you could consider using other iteration methods in JavaScript, such as:

* **for...of loops**: A more traditional and flexible way of iterating over arrays.
* **Array.prototype.map()`, `Array.prototype.filter()`, or `Array.prototype.reduce()`**: These methods can be used for data processing and transformation, but may not be optimized for simple iteration use cases.

For a Lodash-free alternative, you could implement your own iteration functions using native JavaScript methods, such as `for...of` loops or recursive functions.

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**

The provided HTML preparation code includes the necessary script tag to load the Lodash library. The Script Preparation Code is null, indicating that no custom setup is required for this benchmark test.

Note that MeasureThat.net likely provides additional context and documentation about their benchmarking framework, including instructions on how to prepare and run your own benchmarks.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.forEach vs _.each test (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.forEach vs lodash each

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.forEach

lodash each

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):