Benchmark: loop vs some 3214 1234 1234

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

let numbers = []
for (var i = 0; i < 1_000; i++) {
  numbers.push(i);
}

Tests:

loop
for (let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) { let found = false; for (let j = 0; j < numbers.length; j++) { if (numbers[j] === i) { found = true; break; } } }
some
for (let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) { const found = numbers.some(v => v == i) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loop
some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
loop	5248.5 Ops/sec
some	3009.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

In the provided benchmark, two different approaches to search for a number within a list are compared: a traditional for-loop versus the `Array.prototype.some()` method.

### Benchmark Overview

#### Test Cases:

1. **Loop (For-loop)**:
   ```javascript
   for (let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
       let found = false;
       for (let j = 0; j < numbers.length; j++) {
           if (numbers[j] === i) {
               found = true;
               break;
           }
       }
   }
   ```

In this case, the code iterates over an array of numbers and checks if each number exists within the array by nesting another loop. When a match is found, it sets a flag (`found`) and breaks out of the inner loop.

2. **Some (Using `Array.prototype.some()`)**:
   ```javascript
   for (let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
       const found = numbers.some(v => v == i);
   }
   ```

Here, the `Array.prototype.some()` method is employed. It tests whether at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided callback function. If a match is found, it returns `true`, otherwise it returns `false`.

### Performance Results:

- **For-loop**: 5248.53 executions per second
- **Some**: 3009.10 executions per second

### Pros and Cons:

#### For-loop:
- **Pros**:
  - More control over the iteration and logic flow.
  - Might be more understandable for developers familiar with traditional loops.
  - In certain scenarios, performance can be better, as observed in this benchmark.

- **Cons**:
  - More verbose and can lead to more boilerplate code.
  - Increased complexity with nested loops can make the code harder to read.
  - More prone to errors if break statements are mishandled.

#### Array.prototype.some():
- **Pros**:
  - More concise and expressive, often leading to clearer and cleaner code.
  - Reduces boilerplate and focuses more on the intent (checking if any element passes a condition).
  - Built-in optimizations in modern JavaScript engines might make it desirable in certain contexts.

- **Cons**:
  - In this case, it is slower than the traditional for-loop, as shown in the benchmarks.
  - Less fine-grained control over the loop execution, which may not be suitable in all performance-critical situations.

### Other Considerations:
- **Readability vs. Performance**: While the for-loop provides better performance in this specific test, the readability and maintainability of code are also critical factors to consider. Using more concise methods like `some` may lead to fewer bugs in larger codebases, though it is essential to profile different approaches based on actual usage contexts.

- **Alternatives**: Other alternatives for searching within arrays include:
  - Using `Array.prototype.includes()`: This method is straightforward for checking if an array includes a particular value and is typically faster for this specific purpose than either of the above but does not provide index values.
  - `Array.prototype.find()`: This method returns the first element that satisfies a provided testing function or `undefined` if no values satisfy the testing function. It can sometimes be more readable but also introduces overhead compared to a traditional for-loop.

In conclusion, the benchmark demonstrates the trade-offs between control and performance versus simplicity and expressiveness in JavaScript coding practices. Depending on the requirements of the application, developers should weigh these options carefully to choose the most suitable approach.

Related benchmarks:

loop vs some 3214 1234 1234 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: loop vs some

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

loop

some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):