Benchmark: _.forEach vs native for-of loop

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var elements = ['a', 'b', 'c']

Tests:

_.forEach
_.forEach(elements, element => element)
native for-of
for (const element of elements) { element; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.forEach
native for-of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.forEach	5135435.5 Ops/sec
native for-of	16783144.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Lodash's `_.forEach` method**
2. **Native `for...of` loop**

**Option 1: Lodash's `_.forEach` method**

* Purpose: The `_` (underscore) is a utility library that provides a set of functions for functional programming, including `_.forEach`. This function iterates over an array and executes a provided callback function for each element.

Pros:

* Concise code: The `_.forEach` method requires less code to achieve the same result as a native loop.
* Abstraction: It abstracts away the iteration process, allowing developers to focus on the logic of their application.

Cons:

* Overhead: Using an external library introduces additional overhead due to the need to load and initialize the library. This can lead to slower performance compared to native code.
* Cache size: The `_.forEach` method creates a cache of elements being iterated over, which can consume memory.

**Option 2: Native `for...of` loop**

* Purpose: A traditional `for...of` loop is used for iterating over arrays in JavaScript. It provides direct access to the array's elements and does not require any additional libraries.

Pros:

* Performance: Native code has less overhead compared to using a library, resulting in faster performance.
* Cache efficiency: The native loop uses the array's underlying data structure efficiently, without creating a cache of elements.

Cons:

* More verbose code: The native `for...of` loop requires more code to achieve the same result as `_.forEach`.
* Less abstraction: Developers need to handle the iteration process manually, which can lead to more complex logic.

**Library and special feature**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a library. Lodash provides a set of functional programming utilities, including `_.forEach`, that can simplify code but may introduce overhead due to external library usage.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives**

For iterative tasks like this one, other alternatives could include:

* Using a framework like React or Angular, which provide built-in iteration mechanisms.
* Implementing custom iteration logic using recursive functions or bit-manipulation techniques (although these approaches can be less efficient and more prone to errors).

In summary, the benchmark measures the performance difference between Lodash's `_.forEach` method and a native `for...of` loop. The choice between these options depends on the specific requirements of your project, including factors such as code readability, maintainability, and performance considerations.

Related benchmarks:

_.forEach vs native for-of loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.forEach vs native for-of

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.forEach

native for-of

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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