Benchmark: lodash vs es6 in forEach method

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = [
  { 'name': 'lim', 'age': 26 },
  { 'name': 'kim', 'age': 28 },
  { 'name': 'choi', 'age': 32 },
  { 'name': 'park', 'age': 21 }
 ];

Tests:

lodash forEach method
_.forEach(array, (arr, index, self) => { console.log(arr, index); });
lodash each method
_.each(array, (arr, index, self) => { console.log(arr, index); });
es6 forEach method
array.forEach((arr, index, self) => { console.log(arr, index); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash forEach method
lodash each method
es6 forEach method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash forEach method	24811.0 Ops/sec
lodash each method	25328.5 Ops/sec
es6 forEach method	28208.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case, specifically comparing the performance of `lodash`'s `forEach` and `each` methods against the built-in `forEach` method in modern JavaScript (ES6).

**Options Compared**

Two main options are being compared:

1. **`lodash.forEach(array, (arr, index, self) => { console.log(arr, index); });`**: This is using the `forEach` method from the popular JavaScript utility library `lodash`.
2. **`array.forEach((arr, index, self) => { console.log(arr, index); });`**: This is using the built-in `forEach` method in modern JavaScript (ES6).

**Pros and Cons**

* **`lodash.forEach`**:
	+ Pros: Well-tested, widely used, and highly optimized. It's also more readable and maintainable due to its explicit API.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra dependency (`lodash`) that may not be included in the user's project setup.
* **Built-in `forEach` (ES6)**:
	+ Pros: No additional dependencies required. It's a built-in part of modern JavaScript, making it more familiar and accessible to developers who already use ES6.
	+ Cons: May have less explicit API and require more mental overhead for developers who are not used to it.

**Library: Lodash**

`Lodash` is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string processing, and object transformation. The `forEach` method in `lodash` is one of its most widely used functions, offering a simple way to iterate over arrays or other iterable objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The test case uses the modern JavaScript syntax (ES6) for the built-in `forEach` method. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 and provides a concise way to iterate over arrays using an arrow function.

**Alternative Options**

If you want to compare other options, some alternatives could be:

* **Using `for...of` loop instead of `forEach`**: This would eliminate the need for the extra dependency (`lodash`) but might not be as readable or maintainable.
* **Using a different library (e.g., underscore.js)**: If you prefer to use another utility library besides `lodash`, you could create a benchmark test case comparing its `forEach` method against the built-in ES6 method.

Keep in mind that each alternative option would require modifying the benchmark test case and might not provide a direct comparison with `lodash`'s `forEach` method.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs es6 in forEach method (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: lodash forEach method vs lodash each method vs es6 forEach method

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

lodash forEach method

lodash each method

es6 forEach method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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