Benchmark: JS ForEach Tests

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lodash/lodash/4.17.15-npm/lodash.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}, {d: 6542321}, {e: 13123531}]

Tests:

lodash
_.each(value, function(v,i) {console.log(v)})
native
value.forEach(function(v,i) {console.log(v)})
vanilla for-of
for (let v of value) { console.log(v); }
vanilla loop
for (let i = 0; i < value.length; i++) { console.log(value[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native
vanilla for-of
vanilla loop

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.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which tests different approaches for iterating over an array of objects.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition includes:

* **Script Preparation Code**: A script that defines the input data (`value`) as an array of five objects.
* **Html Preparation Code**: A script tag that loads the Lodash library.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four test cases, each with a different approach for iterating over the `value` array:

1. **vanilla for-of**: Uses the `for...of` loop syntax to iterate over the array.
2. **vanilla loop**: Uses a traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`i`) to iterate over the array.
3. **native**: Uses the native `forEach` method to iterate over the array.
4. **lodash**: Uses the Lodash `each` function to iterate over the array.

**Options Comparison**

The four test cases compare different approaches for iterating over arrays in JavaScript:

* **Efficiency**: The native `forEach` method and vanilla for-of loop are likely to be more efficient than the traditional `for` loop, as they avoid the overhead of incrementing an index variable.
* **Readability**: Vanilla for-of loops can provide better readability, as they use a concise syntax that eliminates the need for explicit indexing.
* **Performance**: Lodash's `each` function is likely to be slower than native methods and vanilla for-of loops, due to its additional overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **vanilla for-of**:
	+ Pros: Concise syntax, good readability.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead compared to native methods.
* **vanilla loop**:
	+ Pros: Well-established, widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be verbose, has performance overhead compared to native methods.
* **native (forEach)**:
	+ Pros: Efficient, widely supported.
	+ Cons: May not provide good readability for complex iterations.
* **lodash (each)**:
	+ Pros: Provides a convenient abstraction for iteration.
	+ Cons: Adds extra overhead, may be slower than native methods.

**Library**

The Lodash library is used in the benchmark definition. Lodash provides a set of functional programming utilities, including `each`, which can be used to iterate over arrays.

**JavaScript Features**

The test cases use some special JavaScript features:

* **for...of loop**: Used in vanilla for-of tests.
* **forEach method**: Used in native and Lodash tests.

In summary, the benchmark definition compares different approaches for iterating over arrays in JavaScript. The results suggest that vanilla for-of loops and native `forEach` methods are likely to be more efficient than traditional `for` loops or Lodash's `each` function.

Related benchmarks:

JS ForEach Tests (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native vs vanilla for-of vs vanilla loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

vanilla for-of

vanilla loop

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):