Benchmark: for loop vs. lodash range foreach222

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.10/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
	arr.push({
    	id: i,
      	name: i
    });
}

Tests:

for
var x = 0; var l = arr.length; for (var i = 0; i < l; i++) { x++; }
array foreach
var x = 0; arr.forEach(function (i) { x++; });
array lodash foreach
var x = 0; _.forEach(arr, function (i) { x++; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
array foreach
array lodash foreach

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.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing three approaches to iterate over an array: a traditional `for` loop, an array `forEach` method (with and without using the Lodash library).

**What's being compared**

In the benchmark, two test cases are created:

1. **Traditional for loop**: The script preparation code uses a `for` loop to iterate over the array, incrementing a variable `x`.
2. **Array forEach**: Two test cases are created:
	* One using only the built-in `forEach` method: `arr.forEach(function (i) { x++; });`
	* Another using Lodash's `_` function with the `forEach` method: `_.forEach(arr, function (i) { x++; });`

The browser is then run multiple times to execute each test case and measure their performance.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing three options:

1. **Traditional for loop**: The most basic approach, which requires explicit loop control.
2. **Array forEach**: An iterative method that allows the developer to perform a function on each element of an array.
3. **Lodash's _forEach**: A variant of `forEach` that uses Lodash's internal implementation, potentially providing better performance or features.

**Pros and cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Traditional for loop**
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: Can be slow due to the overhead of manual loop control.
2. **Array forEach**
	* Pros: Fast, modern, and widely supported. Allows for functional programming style.
	* Cons: May not perform as well as other optimized methods (e.g., `Lodash's _forEach`).
3. **Lodash's _forEach**
	* Pros: May provide better performance or features compared to native `forEach`.
	* Cons: Requires the Lodash library, which adds overhead.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used in two ways:

1. **Native forEach**: The built-in `forEach` method is used without any additional dependencies.
2. **Lodash's _**: A variant of `forEach` that uses Lodash's internal implementation.

Both implementations provide a different experience for the developer and can affect performance.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark, as it primarily focuses on comparing different iteration approaches.

Related benchmarks:

for loop vs. lodash range foreach222 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs array foreach vs array lodash foreach

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

array foreach

array lodash foreach

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):