Benchmark: array for vs some (test)

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Tests:

array for
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; function find(target, arr) { for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { if (target === arr[i]) return true; } return false; } var b = find('bc', a);
array some
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; var b = a.some(item => item === 'bc');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array for
array some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two ways to check if an element exists in an array: using the traditional `concat()` method with a loop (also known as "array for") and the new ES6 spread operator (`...`) with the `some()` method.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Array For**: This option uses a traditional loop to iterate through the elements of the array and checks if the target element is present.
2. **Some Method**: This option uses the `some()` method, which returns a boolean value indicating whether at least one element in the array satisfies the provided condition.

**Pros and Cons**

**Array For:**

Pros:

* Well-known and widely supported
* Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with traditional loops

Cons:

* Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array using `concat()`
* May not perform as well on large arrays

**Some Method:**

Pros:

* Faster and more efficient, especially for large arrays
* More concise and readable code
* Returns a boolean value directly, eliminating the need for an additional check

Cons:

* Requires support for the modern ES6 syntax
* May be less familiar to developers who are not used to this syntax

**Library: Lodash**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which provides the `some()` method. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a set of functional programming helpers, including the `some()` method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, if we were to consider other test cases, we might see special features like:

* Async/await syntax
* Promises
* Arrow functions
* Object destructuring

However, this is not the case for the provided benchmark code.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare these two options in a more comprehensive way, you could also consider using other methods, such as:

* Using `indexOf()` or `includes()`, which are built-in array methods that can be used to check if an element exists.
* Using a library like Fast.js or MicroBenchmark, which provide more advanced benchmarking tools and features.

For example, the test case for "array for" could use the following code:
```javascript
var b = arr.indexOf('bc') !== -1;
```
Or the test case for "some method" could use the following code:
```javascript
var b = [...arr].includes('bc');
```
These alternatives would require additional setup and configuration, but they provide more comprehensive comparisons of the performance characteristics of these two options.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 119 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array for	113220272.0 Ops/sec
array some	153785904.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array for vs some (test) (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array for vs array some

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array for

array some

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):