Benchmark: jQuery.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach()

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['torus', 'gospel', 'bacon', 'moist', 'lodge', 'flip', 'ev', 'usual', 'glans', 'lanka', 'ames', 'stoic', 'weco', 'buff', 'naacp', 'mercy', 'stork', 'rq', 'mace', '37', 'rung', 'shod', 'snap', 'pr', 'horus', 'lane', 'safe', 'tie', 'yeasty', 'topple', 'grist', 'coed', 'sled', 'bosom', 'packet', 'xn', 'bunch', 'rowdy', 'jo', 'prone', 'styli', 'warmth', 'jimmy', 'launch', 'aspire', 'roil', 'ohm', 'doff', 'slice', 'dream', 'roger', 'theme', 'lz', 'minus', 'lusty', '35th', 'acuity', 'eli', 'spool', 'pivot'];

Tests:

jQuery.each
var temp; $.each(arr, function(index, item) { temp = item; });
Array.prototype.forEach
var temp; arr.forEach(function(item) { temp = item; });
traditional for loop
var temp; for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i !== len; ++i) { temp = arr[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery.each
Array.prototype.forEach
traditional for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.4.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Array.prototype.forEach

10.5M/s

traditional for loop

824K/s

jQuery.each

0/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.prototype.forEach	10,529,261 Ops/sec
traditional for loop	824,170 Ops/sec
jQuery.each	0 Ops/sec

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!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of three approaches for iterating over an array:

1. `Array.prototype.forEach()`
2. A traditional `for` loop
3. jQuery's `$.each()` method (specifically, `.each(arr, function(index, item) { ... })`)

Now, let's break down each option and their pros and cons:

**1. Array.prototype.forEach()**

`forEach()` is a modern JavaScript method that was introduced in ECMAScript 5 (ES5). It provides a convenient way to iterate over arrays without the need for explicit indexing or loops.

Pros:

* Efficient: `forEach()` uses optimized internal implementations, making it faster than traditional loops.
* Concise: `forEach()` eliminates the need for separate loop variables and conditional checks.
* Modern syntax: Using `forEach()` is a good practice for modern JavaScript development.

Cons:

* Compatibility: Although widely supported, some older browsers might not support `forEach()`. However, in this benchmark, all tests are run on Safari 17, which should cover most use cases.

**2. Traditional for loop**

A traditional `for` loop uses an explicit index variable to access array elements. This approach requires more boilerplate code but provides fine-grained control over the iteration process.

Pros:

* Control: With a `for` loop, you have direct access to each element and can optimize specific parts of your code.
* Portability: Traditional loops are supported across all browsers, making them suitable for legacy projects or cross-browser development.

Cons:

* Boilerplate: Writing traditional loops requires more code than using methods like `forEach()`.
* Efficiency: Optimized internal implementations might outperform simple loops in many cases.

**3. jQuery's .each() method**

`$.each()` is a convenience wrapper around the `forEach()` method, specifically designed for use with jQuery's event handling and DOM manipulation contexts.

Pros:

* Familiarity: Developers already familiar with jQuery will feel comfortable using `.each()`.
* Compatibility: As part of jQuery, `.each()` is widely supported across modern browsers.

Cons:

* Overhead: Using `.each()` introduces a layer of indirection, which might incur additional performance overhead.
* jQuery-specific: If you're not working within the jQuery ecosystem, using `.each()` might be less efficient than native methods like `forEach()`.

In this benchmark, we see that `Array.prototype.forEach()` is the fastest approach, followed closely by traditional loops. However, jQuery's `.each()` method performs poorly, likely due to its overhead and compatibility with older browsers.

Other alternatives for iterating over arrays in JavaScript include:

* `for...in`: This syntax allows iteration over object properties but can be slower than array methods.
* `Array.prototype.map()`, `Array.prototype.filter()`, or other utility methods: These can be used for more complex data transformations, but might incur additional overhead due to the creation of new arrays.

When developing JavaScript applications, understanding the trade-offs between these iteration methods and choosing the best approach for your specific use case will help you optimize performance and write efficient code.

jQuery.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach() (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: `jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach vs traditional for loop`

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

jQuery.each

Array.prototype.forEach

traditional for loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

jQuery.each() vs Array.prototype.forEach() (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach vs traditional for loop

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

jQuery.each

Array.prototype.forEach

traditional for loop

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: `jQuery.each vs Array.prototype.forEach vs traditional for loop`