Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for ++i loop no condition cached collect

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; var results = []; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { results.push(v); ++count; })
native
var count = 0; var results = []; var len = values.length; for (var i = 0; i < len; ++i) { results.push(values[i]); ++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 its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches for iterating over an array: using the `forEach` method of the Lodash library versus a traditional `for` loop with incrementing indices (`i`). The goal is to determine which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash `.forEach`**: This option uses the `forEach` method of the Lodash library, which iterates over an array and applies a callback function to each element. In this case, the callback function increments a counter (`count`) for every iteration.
2. **Native `for` Loop with Incrementing Indices**: This option uses a traditional `for` loop with incrementing indices (`i`). The loop pushes elements from the `values` array into an array of results and also increments a counter (`count`) for every iteration.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash `.forEach`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable code.
		+ No need to manually keep track of indices or loop conditions.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur overhead due to the library's functionality (e.g., error handling, callback function invocation).
		+ Might not be optimized for performance compared to native code.
2. **Native `for` Loop with Incrementing Indices**:
	* Pros:
		+ Optimized for performance by avoiding unnecessary function calls and data copying.
		+ More control over iteration conditions and indexing.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual management of indices, loop conditions, and potential edge cases.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. The `forEach` method is one of its utility functions, allowing you to iterate over arrays and apply a callback function to each element without having to write explicit loop logic.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark. However, some other JavaScript features or syntax might be used in related benchmarks or libraries, such as:

* `async/await` for asynchronous iteration
* `generators` for iterable objects
* `Symbol.iterator` for custom iterators

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches for iterating over arrays could include:

1. **Array.prototype.map()**: Similar to `.forEach`, but returns a new array with the transformed elements.
2. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: Accumulates values in an accumulator, often used for aggregation or transformation.
3. **Manual `for` loops with custom indexing**: Without using libraries like Lodash.

In summary, this benchmark compares two common approaches for iterating over arrays: the concise and readable `.forEach` method of Lodash versus a traditional `for` loop with incrementing indices. The choice between these approaches depends on performance requirements, code readability, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for ++i loop no condition cached collect (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):