Benchmark: lodash .foreach vs native foreach v4.17.15

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{a: 10000}, {b: 20000}, {c: 30000}, {d: 40000}, {e: 50000}]

Tests:

Lodash
_.forEach(data,(value, index) => {console.log(value)})
Native
data.forEach((value, index) => {console.log(value)})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **Lodash `.forEach`**: This option uses the `_.forEach()` function from the Lodash library, which is a utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.
2. **Native `.forEach` v4.17.15**: This option uses the native `forEach()` method, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard and is supported by all modern browsers.

**Description and Purpose:**

The benchmark tests how fast these two approaches can execute a simple loop that iterates over an array and logs each value to the console.

* The Lodash `.forEach()` approach uses the `_.forEach()` function, which is designed for iterating over arrays and objects in a functional programming style. It takes three arguments: the array to iterate over, a callback function to apply to each element, and an optional context object.
* The native `.forEach` v4.17.15 approach uses the built-in `forEach()` method, which is designed for iterating over arrays and objects in a more traditional imperative programming style.

**Pros and Cons:**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* Lodash `.forEach`:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive syntax.
		- Encourages functional programming style, which can lead to more composable and reusable code.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires the Lodash library, which adds an extra dependency.
		- May have overhead due to the library's initialization and garbage collection.
* Native `.forEach` v4.17.15:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional dependencies or overhead.
		- More lightweight and efficient than the Lodash approach.
	+ Cons:
		- Less expressive syntax compared to Lodash.
		- May not be as suitable for functional programming styles.

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark uses Firefox 83 as the test browser, which is a relatively modern version with good performance.
* The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond), which is a common metric for measuring loop performance.
* The benchmark results show that Lodash `.forEach` is slightly faster than native `.forEach`, but both approaches are within a reasonable range.

**Alternatives:**

There are several other alternatives to consider when writing loops in JavaScript:

* For Loop:
	+ Pros: Simple and intuitive syntax, no dependencies or overhead.
	+ Cons: Less expressive than array methods, may not be suitable for functional programming styles.
* Array.prototype.reduce():
	+ Pros: Can be used for both reduction and iteration, more concise syntax.
	+ Cons: May have higher overhead due to the function call stack, less suitable for simple iteration cases.
* Map() or Set() with forEach():
	+ Pros: More expressive than traditional loops, can be used for functional programming styles.
	+ Cons: May have additional dependencies (e.g., require(map) or set), may not be suitable for all use cases.

In this benchmark, the choice of Lodash `.forEach` versus native `.forEach` v4.17.15 depends on your specific use case and preferences. If you prioritize conciseness and functional programming style, Lodash `.forEach` might be a better fit. However, if you prioritize lightweight performance and simplicity, native `.forEach` v4.17.15 could be a better choice.

Related benchmarks:

lodash .foreach vs native foreach v4.17.15 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):