Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop 4

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; var len = values.length; for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition json provides us with information about the test case being measured. In this case, we have two test cases:

1. `lodash.forEach`
2. `native`

Both test cases iterate over an array of objects (`values`) and count the number of objects with a non-null value for property `a`. The main difference between the two test cases lies in how they achieve this iteration.

**Options Compared**

We have two options being compared:

1. **_.forEach (Lodash)**: This option uses the `_` symbol to refer to the Lodash library, which provides a utility function called `forEach()`. The `forEach()` function takes three arguments: the array to iterate over (`values`), a callback function that will be executed for each element in the array (`function(v,i) { ... }`), and an optional fourth argument (in this case, not provided).
2. **For loop (Native)**: This option uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### _.forEach (Lodash)

Pros:

* Easier to read and maintain due to its concise syntax
* Less prone to errors caused by indexing issues

Cons:

* Slower than the native implementation due to overhead from calling a JavaScript function
* Requires Lodash library to be included in the benchmark execution context

### For loop (Native)

Pros:

* Faster execution speed due to not having to call a JavaScript function
* No additional dependencies or overhead

Cons:

* More error-prone due to indexing issues and potential off-by-one errors
* Less readable and maintainable for complex loops

**Library: Lodash**
Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of utility functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, the `forEach()` function from Lodash is used to iterate over the `values` array.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for iterating over arrays include:

* `Array.prototype.forEach()`: This is a built-in method of the Array prototype that can be called on an array to iterate over its elements.
* `forEach()` with a custom callback function: You can create your own custom implementation of the `forEach()` function using a recursive or iterative approach.

Note that these alternatives may have similar performance characteristics to the Lodash implementation, but might not be as concise or readable.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

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):