Benchmark: for vs foreach123

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(100);

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array[i]; }
every
array.every(function(i) { array[i]; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
every

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two loop constructs: `for` and `foreach`. The benchmark is designed to measure which loop construct performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

Two loop constructs are compared:

1. **For Loop**: This traditional loop construct uses an explicit counter variable (`i`) to iterate over the elements of an array.
2. **Foreach Loop (every)**: This construct uses the `Array.every()` method, which iterates over the elements of an array and executes a callback function for each element. The loop stops as soon as the condition returns false.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **For Loop**: Pros:
    *   More control over the iteration process.
    *   Can be more efficient in terms of memory usage.
    Cons:
    *   Requires manual increment/decrement of the counter variable, which can lead to errors if not handled correctly.
*   **Foreach Loop (every)**: Pros:
    *   Simplifies the iteration process and reduces the chance of errors.
    Cons:
    *   May be slower due to the overhead of the `Array.every()` method.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `every` function is used from the built-in JavaScript array methods. This library provides an efficient way to iterate over arrays and perform operations on each element.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript features like async/await, arrow functions, and template literals may not be included in microbenchmarks due to their potential performance impact or variability across different browsers.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative loop constructs or testing other aspects of JavaScript performance, consider the following options:

1.  **Array.prototype.forEach()**: Another common loop construct that iterates over arrays.
2.  **Set**: For iterating over unique elements in an array.
3.  **Map**: For iterating over key-value pairs in an object.
4.  **Async/await**: For testing asynchronous loop constructs or performance comparisons with synchronous loops.
5.  **Generators and Iterators**: For exploring efficient iteration methods beyond traditional `for` and `foreach` loops.

These alternatives can be used to create more comprehensive benchmarks, allowing users to compare the performance of various JavaScript features and libraries in different contexts.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	76788.5 Ops/sec
every	4245466.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs foreach123 (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs every

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

every

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):