Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop with cached length

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
let count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } });
native
let count = 0; const length = values.length; for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	3786989.8 Ops/sec
native	3853470.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches for iterating over an array of objects: using Lodash's `forEach` method versus a traditional `for` loop with cached length.

**Lodash `forEach` Method**

The `forEach` method is a part of the Lodash library, which provides utility functions for JavaScript. In this case, it's used to iterate over the `values` array and increment a counter (`count`) whenever an object in the array has a non-null value on its `a` property.

**Traditional `for` Loop with Cached Length**

The traditional approach uses a `for` loop with cached length. It calculates the length of the `values` array once and stores it in a variable (`length`). Then, it iterates over the array using a `for` loop, incrementing the counter (`count`) whenever an object has a non-null value on its `a` property.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Lodash `forEach` Method**: This approach uses Lodash's `forEach` method to iterate over the array.
2. **Traditional `for` Loop with Cached Length**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop with cached length.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash `forEach` Method**

Pros:

* Concise and readable code
* Eliminates the need to manually increment a counter
* Lodash provides additional utility functions, making it a convenient choice

Cons:

* Potential overhead due to the use of an external library (Lodash)
* May not be optimized for performance in every scenario

**Traditional `for` Loop with Cached Length**

Pros:

* Lightweight and performant, as it only uses built-in JavaScript features
* Can be optimized for performance by using caching or other techniques

Cons:

* More verbose code compared to the Lodash approach
* Requires manual management of the counter variable

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If performance is critical, the traditional `for` loop with cached length might be a better choice.
* Readability and conciseness: The Lodash `forEach` method provides more concise code, making it easier to read and maintain.
* Library overhead: Depending on the specific use case, using an external library like Lodash might introduce unnecessary overhead.

**Library Usage**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript. Its primary purpose is to provide a collection of small, reusable functions that can be used to simplify common tasks. In this benchmark, Lodash's `forEach` method is used to iterate over the array, making it easier to write concise and readable code.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other optimization techniques or advanced JavaScript features, there are many resources available online, such as browser-specific APIs (e.g., Web Workers), async/await, or modern JavaScript language features like `let` and `const`.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop with cached length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):