Benchmark: for vs for of3 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var count = 1000 * 1000
var data = [];

do {
  data.push(count);
} while(--count);

Tests:

for
let counter = 0; for (var index = 0; index < data.length; index++) { var obj = data[index]; if (obj == obj) counter++; }
for of
let counter = 0; for (const obj of data) { if (obj == obj) counter++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
for of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/120.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 120 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	2.2 Ops/sec
for of	22.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and results to explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Definition Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for iterating over an array:

1. **Traditional For Loop (`for`)**: This approach uses a traditional loop with an index variable.
2. **For...Of Loop (`for of`)**: This approach uses the "for...of" syntax, which allows iteration over arrays without needing an explicit index.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* Traditional For Loop (`for`)
* For...Of Loop (`for of`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional For Loop (`for`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More familiar to developers, especially those with C-style programming backgrounds.
		+ Allows for more control over iteration (e.g., skipping certain elements).
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of maintaining an index variable.
2. **For...Of Loop (`for of`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it avoids the need to manage an index variable.
		+ More concise and expressive syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less familiar or less intuitive for developers without experience with this syntax.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses a JavaScript library or function that checks if two objects are equal using the `==` operator (`obj == obj`). This is likely done to ensure consistency in the test results. The specific library used is not mentioned, but it's likely a built-in JavaScript function or an external library like Lodash.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses the "for...of" syntax, which is a relatively modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows iteration over arrays and other iterable objects without needing to specify an index variable. The `for...of` loop is designed to be more concise and expressive than traditional for loops.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using a different approach, some alternatives could include:

* Using a native JavaScript array method like `forEach()` or `map()`.
* Utilizing a functional programming style with methods like `reduce()` or `filter()`.
* Implementing a custom iteration mechanism using WebAssembly or another low-level technology.

Keep in mind that the optimal approach may depend on the specific use case, performance requirements, and desired development experience.

Related benchmarks:

for vs for of3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs for of

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

for of

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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