Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
_.forEach vs forEach()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash vs Native
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var data = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
Tests:
Lodash
_.forEach(data, (result) => console.log(result));
Native
data.forEach((result) => console.log(result));
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Lodash
Native
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):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using Lodash's `forEach` function versus the native JavaScript `forEach` method. **What is being tested?** In this benchmark, we have an array of numbers (`data`) that needs to be processed. The benchmark measures how fast each approach can iterate through the array and log each element to the console. **Options compared:** 1. **Lodash's `forEach` function**: This uses the Lodash library to provide a more concise and robust way of iterating over arrays. 2. **Native JavaScript `forEach` method**: This is a built-in method that allows you to iterate over an array without using any external libraries. **Pros and Cons:** 1. **Lodash's `forEach` function**: * Pros: + More concise and readable code + Provides additional functionality, such as support for async callbacks * Cons: + Requires the Lodash library to be included in the project + May have a slight performance overhead due to the inclusion of an external library 2. **Native JavaScript `forEach` method**: * Pros: + No performance overhead due to not including any external libraries + Faster execution, as it is implemented natively by the browser * Cons: + Requires more verbose code compared to Lodash's `forEach` + Less concise and less readable for complex use cases **Library:** In this benchmark, we are using Lodash version 4.17.5, which provides a robust and widely-used implementation of functional programming utilities. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax:** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches rely on standard JavaScript features, such as arrays and function callbacks. **Benchmark preparation code:** The provided script preparation code defines an array `data` that will be used for the benchmark. ```javascript var data = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]; ``` The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the Lodash library, which is required for the benchmark. ```html <script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script> ``` **Alternatives:** Other alternatives to comparing `forEach` implementations include: 1. Using `map` and `reduce` instead of `forEach`: This would involve replacing the logging statement with a map or reduce operation, which could provide additional insights into performance. 2. Using Web Workers or parallel processing: If the benchmark is running in a browser environment, using Web Workers or parallel processing techniques could provide additional scalability improvements. 3. Using different JavaScript engines or interpreters: Some benchmarks may choose to compare the performance of different JavaScript engines or interpreters, such as V8 (Chrome), SpiderMonkey (Firefox), or SquirrelFish (Safari).
Related benchmarks:
lodash.each vs Object.forEach
lodash foreach vs forEach
Lodash foreach vs native foreach
lodash.each vs lodash.forEach
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?