Benchmark: for each for of christian

Script Preparation code:

var oldObj = {
  food: 'bread',
  toy: 'ur feelings',
  drink: 'bang',
  thing: 'pencil',
  city: 'SD',
  verb: 'run',
  letter: 'a',
  number: 5,
  band: 'BTS',
  utensil: 'fork',
  boolean: true,
  arr: ['pirate'],
  nest: {bird: 'get it?'}
};
var categories = Object.keys(oldObj);
var obj = {};

Tests:

forEach
categories.forEach(category => obj[category] = oldObj[category]);
for ... of
for (var category of categories) { obj[category] = oldObj[category]; };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
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 provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which defines two test cases:

1. `forEach`: This test case uses the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method to iterate over an array of categories and assign values from an object (`oldObj`) to another object (`obj`).
2. `for ... of`: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with the `of` keyword to iterate over an array of categories and assign values from `oldObj` to `obj`.

**Options Compared:**

The two test cases compare the performance of the `forEach` method versus the traditional `for ... of` loop.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. `forEach`:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise syntax
		+ Eliminates the need for manual index management
	* Cons:
		+ Can be less readable for complex logic
		+ May have performance overhead due to additional function calls
2. Traditional `for ... of` loop:
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code
		+ Allows for more control over the iteration process
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual index management (in this case, using a variable `category`)
		+ May be slower due to additional function calls

**Library Used:**

In both test cases, no external library is used. The code is self-contained and relies on built-in JavaScript functionality.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases beyond what's mentioned above (i.e., the `for ... of` loop with the `of` keyword). However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers may optimize certain methods like `forEach()` for performance.

**Other Alternatives:**

For comparison, MeasureThat.net also runs benchmarks using other JavaScript iteration methods, such as:

* Traditional `for` loops without the `of` keyword
* `Array.prototype.map()`
* `Array.prototype.reduce()`

These alternatives can provide further insights into the performance characteristics of different iteration methods.

Keep in mind that microbenchmarking results may vary depending on factors like browser version, platform, and system configuration.

Related benchmarks:

for each for of christian (version: 0)

cuz u asked

Comparing performance of: forEach vs for ... of

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach

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):