Benchmark: Foreach lodash vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = [...Array(100000).keys()];

Tests:

lodash
_.forEach(array, x => { const a = x * 1.5; })
native
array.forEach(x => { const a = x * 1.5; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance differences between various approaches can be fascinating and insightful. Let's break down what's happening in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. Using the `lodash` library for iterating over an array using `_.forEach()`.
2. Iterating over the same array using native JavaScript syntax (`array.forEach()`).

**What are we testing?**

We're testing how fast each approach can iterate over a large array and perform a simple calculation on each element.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash library**: `_lodash` is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of reusable functions for various tasks, including iteration. In this benchmark, we're using the `_.forEach()` function to iterate over the array.
2. **Native JavaScript syntax**: The native JavaScript syntax uses the `array.forEach()` method to iterate over the array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash library**:
	+ Pros: Provides a reusable, tested, and well-maintained function for iteration.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra dependency (the `_lodash` library) that may not be included in every JavaScript environment.
* **Native JavaScript syntax**:
	+ Pros: No additional dependencies are required, as it's part of the native JavaScript language.
	+ Cons: May require more boilerplate code and manual error handling.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of reusable functions for various tasks. In this benchmark, we're using the `_.forEach()` function to iterate over the array. `_lodash` also provides other useful functions, such as `_.map()`, `_.filter()`, and more.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in these test cases. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax for iteration.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code provided sets up an array with 100,000 elements using the `[...Array(100000).keys()]` syntax. This creates an array of numbers from 0 to 99,999.

**HTML Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the `_lodash.js` file, which provides the `_.forEach()` function used in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show two tests: "Lodash" and "Native". The results indicate that the native JavaScript syntax is slightly faster than the Lodash library for this particular use case.

In terms of alternatives, other approaches to iterating over arrays include:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` directly on the array object.
* Using a `for` loop with an index variable.
* Using a `while` loop or recursive function.

These alternatives may have varying performance characteristics depending on the specific use case and JavaScript environment.

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/92.0.4515.107 Safari/537.36 Edg/92.0.902.55

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	1108.2 Ops/sec
native	935.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Foreach lodash vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):