Benchmark: traditional for loop vs for ... of

Tests:

traditional for loop
const arr = Array(10000).fill(1); let sum = 0; for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { sum += i; }
for ... of
const arr = Array(10000).fill(1); let sum = 0; for (const el of arr) { sum += el; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
traditional for loop
for ... of

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which is essentially a script that defines a simple task to be performed by different programming approaches. In this case, we have two test cases:

1. A traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`i`) that increments from 0 to the length of an array.
2. A `for...of` loop that iterates over the same array without an explicit index variable.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Traditional `for` loop with an index variable (`i`)
* `for...of` loop (a newer, more concise syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional `for` Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with the old syntax.
		+ Allows direct access to the index variable (`i`) if needed.
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise and expressive than `for...of`.
		+ May lead to off-by-one errors if not used carefully.
2. **`for...of` Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable than traditional `for` loops.
		+ Eliminates the need for an index variable, reducing the chance of off-by-one errors.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less familiar to developers who are not yet comfortable with this new syntax.

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

Neither test case uses any libraries or special JavaScript features beyond what's standard in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `for...of` loop is simply a more concise way of iterating over an array without having to declare a separate index variable.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This method can be used as an alternative to both traditional `for` loops and `for...of` loops.
2. **Arrow functions with Array.prototype.forEach()**: You could also use arrow functions (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) with the `forEach()` method for a more concise and expressive solution.

In conclusion, MeasureThat.net's benchmark helps you compare the performance of traditional `for` loops versus the newer, more concise `for...of` loop. While both approaches have their pros and cons, `for...of` is generally considered a better choice due to its readability and reduced chance of off-by-one errors.

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/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
traditional for loop	18772.7 Ops/sec
for ... of	17825.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

traditional for loop vs for ... of (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: traditional for loop vs for ... of

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

traditional for loop

for ... of

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):