Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop1212 jack

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [...Array(50000).keys()]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; for (let v = 0; v < values.length; v++) { if (values[v].a !== null) { count++; } }
native
var count = 0; for (let v of values) { if (v.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:

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/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	135.1 Ops/sec
native	12187.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking test case for `lodash forEach vs for i loop1212 jack`.

**Benchmark Test Case Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1.  **`lodash.forEach`**: This approach uses the `forEach` method from the Lodash library to iterate over the array and increment a counter.
2.  **`native for...of loop`**: This approach uses a traditional `for...of` loop to iterate over the array and increment a counter.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1.  **`lodash.forEach`**
2.  **`native for...of loop`**

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **`lodash.forEach`**:
    *   Pros: The Lodash library provides a convenient and expressive way to iterate over arrays, making the code more readable and maintainable.
    *   Cons: This approach relies on an external library, which may introduce additional overhead and dependencies. Additionally, the performance of the `forEach` method can vary depending on the specific implementation and browser support.
*   **`native for...of loop`**:
    *   Pros: This approach is a native part of JavaScript and doesn't require any additional libraries, making it more lightweight and efficient. The `for...of` loop is optimized by the engine for arrays and other iterable objects.
    *   Cons: This approach requires manual iteration over the array elements using an index, which can make the code less readable and more prone to errors.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used in the `lodash.forEach` test case. The `lodash.forEach` method iterates over an array and applies a provided function to each element. In this case, it increments a counter when the condition (`values[v].a !== null`) is met.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark other than the `for...of` loop and the use of the `lodash.forEach` method.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few examples:

*   **Using `Array.prototype.forEach`**: Instead of using the `lodash.forEach` method, you can use the built-in `Array.prototype.forEach` method to achieve similar results.
*   **Using `map()` and `filter()`**: You can also use the `map()` and `filter()` methods in combination to achieve the same result as the `for...of` loop and `lodash.forEach`.
*   **Using a custom iterator**: If you need more control over the iteration process, you can create a custom iterator using the `Iterator` API.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop1212 jack (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

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):