Benchmark: aaplya for vs forEach

Script Preparation code:

window.testArr = new Array(10000);
window.testArr.fill(1);

Tests:

for()
for(i = 0; i < window.testArr.length; i++) { let x = window.testArr[i]; }
forEach()
window.testArr.forEach((element)=>{ let x = element; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for()
forEach()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/116.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for()	466.5 Ops/sec
forEach()	28457.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases, each testing a different approach to iterating over an array in JavaScript: `for()` loop and `forEach()` method.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **For Loop (`for()`)**: A traditional iterative approach using a manual counter variable `i` to iterate over the array elements.
2. **forEach() Method**: A modern, concise way of iterating over arrays using the `forEach()` method, which executes a callback function for each element in the array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **For Loop (`for()`)**
	+ Pros:
		- More control over iteration (e.g., skipping elements).
		- Can be more efficient for smaller datasets or when manual optimization is needed.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual management of the loop counter variable `i`.
		- Can lead to more complex code and potential pitfalls (e.g., off-by-one errors).
* **forEach() Method**
	+ Pros:
		- Concise, readable syntax.
		- No need to manually manage the iteration (less error-prone).
		- Works well with larger datasets or when iterating over multiple arrays.
	+ Cons:
		- Less control over iteration compared to `for()` loop.
		- Might be slower for smaller datasets due to additional overhead.

**Library and purpose**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark JSON. However, it's likely that the test suite uses built-in JavaScript libraries or modules (e.g., `Array.prototype.forEach()`) rather than requiring external dependencies.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in these test cases beyond standard JavaScript capabilities. If any specific features were used, they might be related to array iteration, callback functions, or modern ES6+ features like `forEach()`.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for array iteration, here are a few more options:

1. **While Loop**: An iterative approach using a conditional statement (`while` loop) instead of a manual counter variable.
2. **Loom (Lodash)**: A popular utility library that provides additional functions for working with arrays, including `forEach()`.
3. **ES6+ Iterators and Generators**: More advanced features like iterators and generators can provide efficient ways to iterate over arrays or other iterable objects.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly applicable to the specific test case or problem being addressed.

Related benchmarks:

aaplya for vs forEach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for() vs forEach()

Created: one year 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 one month ago):