Benchmark: Array.prototype.forEach vs _.each vs js for3

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.1/underscore-min.js"></script>

Tests:

foreach
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; params.forEach(param => index++);
lodash each
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; _.each(params, param => index++);
for
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; for(var i in params){ index++; }
for 2
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; var i; for(i in params){ index++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
foreach
lodash each
for
for 2

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for iterating over an array: `Array.prototype.forEach`, `_` (Lodash) `each`, and traditional JavaScript `for` loops.

**Options Compared**

1. **`Array.prototype.forEach`**: This method iterates over an array using a callback function that is called for each element in the array.
2. **_ (Lodash) `each`**: Lodash's `each` method is similar to `forEach`, but it also accepts an optional callback with index and value arguments, which can be used to modify the original array.
3. **Traditional JavaScript `for` loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Array.prototype.forEach`**:
	* Pros: concise syntax, works well for simple iteration cases, relatively fast execution.
	* Cons: modifies the original array, can be slower than traditional loops for large arrays due to overhead from callback function creation.
2. **_ (Lodash) `each`**:
	* Pros: flexible syntax, allows for easy modification of the original array, and is often faster than traditional loops.
	* Cons: requires an additional library dependency, may have higher memory usage due to the extra object created.
3. **Traditional JavaScript `for` loop**:
	* Pros: direct control over iteration flow, no additional dependencies required, can be more efficient for large arrays.
	* Cons: verbose syntax, requires manual index management, can be error-prone.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which is a popular JavaScript utility library. The `each` method is specifically used to iterate over an array.

No special JavaScript features are mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers have built-in support for `for...of` loops, which can simplify iteration cases. If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, the "for...of" loop is definitely worth a look!

**Alternatives**

Some potential alternatives to consider when iterating over arrays:

* **Modern JavaScript `for...of` loop**: A concise and expressive way to iterate over arrays, with built-in support for automatic index management.
* **Arrow functions**: Can be used as callback functions in `forEach` or as an alternative to traditional loops.
* **Iterators**: Provide a more functional programming style of iteration, allowing you to manage the iteration flow explicitly.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and use cases. Depending on your specific requirements and preferences, one of these alternatives might be a better fit for your project.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.forEach vs _.each vs js for3 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: foreach vs lodash each vs for vs for 2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

foreach

lodash each

for

for 2

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):