Benchmark: Underscore each vs native object foreach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.0/underscore.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = {};
Array(10000).keys().forEach(function (i) {
  data[i] = i;
});

Tests:

Underscore
var result = 0 _.each(data, (i) => {result += i})
Native
var result = Object.values(data).forEach((i) => {result += i})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Underscore
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and analyze the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between using Underscore.js (a popular JavaScript utility library) versus native JavaScript for iterating over an array using `forEach`. The test creates a large array of 10,000 elements, assigns each element a value, and then measures how long it takes to sum up all these values using both approaches.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Underscore**: This test case uses the Underscore.js library's `each` function to iterate over the array and accumulate the sum.
2. **Native**: This test case uses native JavaScript's `forEach` method to iterate over the array and accumulate the sum.

**Comparison**

The main difference between these two approaches is how they handle the iteration and accumulation of values.

* **Underscore**: Underscore.js provides a higher-level interface that abstracts away some low-level details, making it easier to write concise code. In this case, `_.each` iterates over the array and calls a callback function for each element, which accumulates the sum in the `result` variable.
* **Native**: Native JavaScript's `forEach` method is more direct and explicit. It iterates over the array and calls a provided callback function for each element, but does not accumulate values by default. In this case, we need to explicitly use `Object.values(data).forEach((i) => { result += i })` to achieve the same result.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Underscore**: Pros:
	+ Easier to write concise code
	+ Higher-level interface abstracts away low-level details
	+ Can be more readable for complex operations
*   Cons:
	+ Adds an external dependency (Underscore.js)
	+ May introduce performance overhead due to function calls and closures
* **Native**: Pros:
	+ No additional dependencies or overhead
	+ More direct and explicit control over iteration and accumulation
	+ Can be more optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine
*   Cons:
	+ Requires more boilerplate code (using `Object.values()` and `forEach`)
	+ May be less readable for complex operations

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* **External dependencies**: Adding external libraries or modules can introduce performance overhead and inconsistencies across different environments.
* **Performance optimization**: Some optimizations, like caching or memoization, might not be immediately apparent but can significantly impact performance.
* **Code readability and maintainability**: While concise code is often desirable, it's equally important to ensure that the code remains readable and maintainable.

**Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark without using Underscore.js, you could consider alternative libraries or approaches for iterating over arrays, such as:

* Lodash (similar to Underscore)
* Ramda (a functional programming library with a different API)
* Native JavaScript's `map()` and `reduce()` methods
* A custom implementation of the loop and accumulation logic

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/104.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 104 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Underscore	11119.5 Ops/sec
Native	21260.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Underscore each vs native object foreach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Underscore vs Native

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Underscore

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):