Benchmark: Loops for compared

Script Preparation code:

var array = Array.from({length: 100});

Tests:

for
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { const t = array[i]; }
foreach
array.forEach(function(v, i) { const t = v; });
for..of
for (var v of array) { const t = v; }
for..of over entries
for (var [i, v] of array.entries()) { const t = v; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach
for..of
for..of over entries

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/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/107.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 107 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

foreach

14.3M/s

for..of

13.9M/s

for..of over entries

2.7M/s

for

122K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ foreach	14,327,177 Ops/sec
for..of	13,869,474 Ops/sec
for..of over entries	2,701,816 Ops/sec
for	122,214 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an in-depth explanation of the provided JSON benchmark data.

**Benchmark Definition**

The JSON defines a benchmark named "Loops for compared" that compares the performance of three different types of loops: traditional `for` loop, `forEach` loop, and `for..of` loop. The script preparation code is provided to create an array of 100 elements before running the benchmarks.

**Options Compared**

The three options compared in this benchmark are:

1. **Traditional `for` loop**: A classic loop that uses a counter variable (`i`) to iterate over the array elements.
2. **`forEach` loop**: A more modern and concise way to iterate over arrays using the `forEach` method.
3. **`for..of` loop**: A newer type of loop introduced in ECMAScript 2015, which allows iterating over iterable objects, including arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, control over iteration variables, and can be more efficient for certain use cases.
	+ Cons: Can lead to tedious code when working with large datasets or complex logic.
* **`forEach` loop**:
	+ Pros: Concise, easy to read, and less prone to errors compared to traditional `for` loops. It's also generally faster than traditional `for` loops.
	+ Cons: Less control over iteration variables, which can be a limitation for certain use cases.
* **`for..of` loop**:
	+ Pros: Allows iterating over arrays and other iterable objects, eliminating the need to keep track of indices or using `length`. It's also more concise than traditional `for` loops.
	+ Cons: Less control over iteration variables, which can be a limitation for certain use cases. The syntax can be unfamiliar to developers who aren't familiar with it.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the options listed rely on any external libraries. They are built-in JavaScript features designed to improve code readability and performance.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `for..of` loop uses a new type of iteration syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015, which allows iterating over arrays and other iterable objects using a more concise syntax than traditional `for` loops. This feature is not present in older versions of JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

For other types of loops or performance comparisons, some common alternatives include:

* `while` loops
* Array methods like `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()`
* Other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized loop implementations

Keep in mind that the choice of loop type ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Loops for compared (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: `for vs foreach vs for..of vs for..of over entries`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

for

foreach

for..of

for..of over entries

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Loops for compared (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach vs for..of vs for..of over entries

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

for

foreach

for..of

for..of over entries

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `for vs foreach vs for..of vs for..of over entries`