Benchmark: for vs foreach t2

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(100);

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0, n=arr.length; i < n; i++) { array[i]; }
foreach
array.forEach(function(i) { array[i]; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two loop types in JavaScript:

1. **Traditional For Loop**: The first test case uses a traditional for loop, which iterates over an array using an index variable (in this case, `i`) and checks if it's within the bounds of the array.
2. **ForEach Loop**: The second test case uses the `forEach` method, which is a built-in JavaScript method that applies a provided function to each element in an array.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two loop types:

* Traditional For Loop (`for`)
* ForEach Loop (`foreach`, note: in JS "foreach" typically means using the `forEach` method)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Traditional For Loop (`for`):**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more flexible, as it allows you to access both the index and the value of each element.
		+ Often used when working with arrays or other collections that don't have a built-in `forEach` method.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual incrementing of the index variable, which can lead to off-by-one errors if not done carefully.
		+ Can be less efficient due to the overhead of incrementing the index variable.
2. **ForEach Loop (`foreach`, using the `forEach` method):**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable, as it eliminates the need for manual indexing.
		+ Often faster, since it doesn't require explicit incrementing of indices.
	* Cons:
		+ Less flexible than traditional for loops, as it only provides access to each element's value (not its index).
		+ May not be suitable for arrays or collections without a built-in `forEach` method.

**Library and Purpose:**

In the benchmark code, no specific library is used beyond what comes with JavaScript. However, if we consider the context of modern JavaScript development, libraries like Lodash (`_.forEach`) might be used in similar scenarios to provide additional functionality.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark definition. It's a straightforward comparison between two basic loop types in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for iterating over arrays or collections include:

* `while` loops with manual indexing
* Array.prototype.reduce()
* Map and Set iteration methods (if working with objects)
* Async iteration using iterators or async/await

Note that the choice of iteration method depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	0.0 Ops/sec
foreach	5686767.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs foreach t2 (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

foreach

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):