Benchmark: map vs forEach 12344323432

Script Preparation code:

   var arr = [];
   for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
       arr[i] = i;
   }

   function someFn(i) {
       return i * 3 * 8;
   }

Tests:

forEach
arr.forEach(function (item){ someFn(item); })
map
arr.map(item => someFn(item))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.164 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach	14614.2 Ops/sec
map	13705.6 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript methods: `forEach` and `map`. The test case uses an array of 1000 elements, where each element is a simple arithmetic function `someFn(i) = i * 3 * 8`.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

1. **forEach**: This method iterates over the array using a callback function that performs the desired operation on each element.
2. **map**: This method also iterates over the array but returns a new array with the transformed elements.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### forEach

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement, especially for developers familiar with traditional loops.
* Allows for more control over iteration order (though not as efficient).

Cons:

* Less expressive and concise than map, which can lead to code duplication.
* May be slower due to the overhead of callback functions.

### map

Pros:

* More concise and expressive way to perform transformations on arrays.
* Returns a new array with transformed elements, avoiding side effects.

Cons:

* Can be less intuitive for developers without experience with functional programming concepts.
* May have higher memory overhead due to creating a new array.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `someFn` function is used as a callback within both `forEach` and `map`. This suggests that the benchmark is primarily concerned with the iteration mechanisms rather than the specific implementation details of `someFn`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6 syntax features, such as arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`\r\n`). These features are generally supported by modern browsers but may not be compatible with older versions.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to measure the performance of array iteration methods, consider:

1. **V8 Benchmark Suite**: A collection of benchmarks designed to test specific JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey).
2. **BenchmarkJS**: A benchmarking framework specifically designed for measuring JavaScript performance.
3. **js-benchmark**: A simple benchmarking library that allows you to create custom benchmarks.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives may have different design goals or requirements compared to MeasureThat.net.

In summary, the `map` method is likely expected to perform better than `forEach` due to its optimized implementation and reduced overhead. However, this depends on various factors, such as JavaScript engine, hardware, and specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

map vs forEach 12344323432 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach

map

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):