Benchmark: find vs for of arr

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
var i = 0;

while (i <= 1E5) arr[i] = i++;

Tests:

Array.prototype.find
const item = arr.find(item => item == 1E5);
for of
let item for ( const i of arr ) { if( i == 1E5 ) { item = i return } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.find
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net!

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides the necessary information for creating and running the benchmarks. The provided definition includes:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark, which in this case is "find vs for of arr".
* `Description`: A brief description of what the benchmark measures.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A snippet of JavaScript code that prepares the environment for the benchmark. In this case, it creates an empty array `arr` and fills it with numbers from 0 to 100,000 using a `while` loop.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An optional section for adding HTML code to prepare the testing environment, which is not used in this example.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark includes two individual test cases:

1. **Array.prototype.find**: This test case measures the performance of the `find()` method on an array.
	* The benchmark definition uses a constant expression with a lambda function to find the first element in the array that matches 100,000.
2. **for...of**: This test case measures the performance of a traditional `for` loop using the `for...of` iteration syntax.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

* **Array.prototype.find**: A method-based approach to find the first element in an array that matches a condition.
* **Traditional for...of**: A loop-based approach using the `for...of` iteration syntax.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Array.prototype.find**:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and expressive code
		+ Fast performance (native implementation)
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported in older browsers or Node.js versions
2. **Traditional for...of**:
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser and Node.js support
		+ Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., caching results)
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code compared to `find()`
		+ May have overhead due to loop initialization and iteration

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark, but the `Array.prototype.find()` method relies on the built-in JavaScript array prototype.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Neither of these test cases utilizes any special or advanced JavaScript features. They rely on standard language constructs and are designed to be simple and straightforward.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few alternatives:

* **Using `reduce()`**: Instead of `find()`, you could use the `reduce()` method to achieve similar results.
* **Using `some()`**: Another array method that can be used for similar purposes as `find()`.
* **Manual iteration with `forEach()` or `map()`**: You could also implement a loop using `forEach()` or `map()` methods, which might offer better performance in certain scenarios.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs, so it's essential to test them thoroughly if you're considering using them for similar use cases.

Related benchmarks:

find vs for of arr (version: 0)

Measuring which is faster

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.find vs for of

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.find

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):