Benchmark: for vs foreach vs some

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(100);
for(var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
	array[i] = Math.random();
}

Tests:

for..in
for (var i in array) { array[i]; }
foreach
array.forEach(function(item, index) { return item; });
some
array.some(function(item, index) { return item === array[index]; });
for
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array[i]; }
for with predefined size
var size = array.length for (var i = 0; i < size; i++) { array[i]; }
while
while((a=array.pop()) !== undefined){ //do your stuff }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for..in
foreach
some
for
for with predefined size
while

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON and compare the different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates an array of 100 random numbers using `Math.random()`. The loop will iterate over this array, assigning each value to a new property on the array object.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: None (empty string).

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark includes six test cases, each with its own JavaScript loop:

1. **for..in**: Uses the `in` operator to iterate over the array's properties.
2. **foreach**: Uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the array elements.
3. **some**: Uses the `some` method to check if any element in the array meets a certain condition.
4. **for**: A traditional loop using an index variable (`i`) to iterate over the array's length.
5. **for with predefined size**: Similar to the previous one, but uses a pre-defined variable (`size`) to iterate over the array's length.
6. **while**: Uses a `while` loop with `array.pop()` to remove elements from the array while iterating.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of each loop type:

* **Traditional loops (for, for with predefined size)**: These loops use an index variable and a manual increment/decrement.
* **Iterators (foreach)**: This method uses an iterator object that yields each element in the array.
* **Property iteration (for..in)**: This method iterates over the array's properties using the `in` operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional loops**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, portable across environments.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to manual index management and potential bounds checking issues.
2. **Iterators (foreach)**:
	* Pros: Efficient, modern, and safe (no index bounds checking).
	* Cons: May require more code understanding, specific to JavaScript syntax.
3. **Property iteration (for..in)**:
	* Pros: Simple, intuitive for iterating over objects.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to property enumeration, potential issues with inherited properties.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases explicitly use a library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `some` method uses a functional programming style, which is not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `forEach` method also has a functional programming aspect to it.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative loop types, consider:

* **While loops**: Similar to the traditional loop, but with a conditional statement that determines the iteration.
* **Array.prototype.reduce() and Array.prototype.filter()**: These methods can be used for more complex array operations, but may not be directly comparable to simple loops.

In summary, the benchmark is comparing six different loop types in JavaScript: traditional loops (for, for with predefined size), iterators (foreach), property iteration (for..in), while loops, and functional programming-style methods (some). Each approach has its pros and cons, which are highlighted by the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 123 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for..in	1092254.1 Ops/sec
foreach	17238516.0 Ops/sec
some	1508564224.0 Ops/sec
for	22561056.0 Ops/sec
for with predefined size	22691650.0 Ops/sec
while	71021480.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs foreach vs some (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for..in vs foreach vs some vs for vs for with predefined size vs while

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for..in

foreach

some

for

for with predefined size

while

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):