Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop dddsdfsdf

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
}]
var valArr = [];

for (let i = 0; i < 20000; i++) {
    valArr.push({
        a: 1,
        b: 2,
        c: 3
    });
}

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.forEach(valArr, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; for (var i = 0; i < valArr.length; i++) { if (valArr[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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to iterate over an array: `_.forEach` (using Lodash) and a traditional `for` loop (`native`). The test case uses a predefined JavaScript script that generates an array of 20,000 objects with three properties each. The goal is to count the number of objects where the `a` property is not null.

**Lodash `.forEach` Approach**

The first test case uses Lodash's `_.forEach` method, which iterates over the array and calls a callback function for each element. In this implementation, the callback function checks if the `a` property of each object is not null and increments a counter if it's true.

Pros:

* Concise code that clearly expresses the intent
* Lodash provides a convenient way to perform common operations like iteration and iteration callbacks

Cons:

* Requires Lodash to be included in the test environment (as shown in the HTML preparation code)
* May have additional overhead due to the external library

**Traditional `for` Loop (`native`) Approach**

The second test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array. The loop iterates 20,000 times, checking each object's `a` property and incrementing a counter if it's not null.

Pros:

* Lightweight, only requiring basic JavaScript syntax
* Does not require any external libraries

Cons:

* Code can become verbose and less readable for complex iteration patterns
* May be slower due to the explicit loop overhead

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and more. In this case, `_.forEach` is used as a convenience function to simplify iteration over arrays.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

For iterative approaches, other alternatives could include:

* Array.prototype.forEach(): This method is built-in to the JavaScript language and provides similar functionality to Lodash's `_.forEach`.
* For...of Loop: A newer iteration syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which allows for more concise and expressive iteration code.

For non-iterative approaches, other alternatives could include:

* Array.prototype.reduce(): Another built-in method that can be used to accumulate values or perform aggregation operations.
* Map functions: JavaScript's `map()` function can be used to create a new array with transformed values.

These alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and conciseness.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop dddsdfsdf (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):