Benchmark: teste de fors - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide#jquery"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];for(i = 0; i < 300; i++){arr[i] = i;}

Tests:

jQuery
$.each(arr, function(i,e){console.log(e[i])})
Js
for(j = 0; l = arr.length, j < l;j++){console.log(arr[j])}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/101.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 101 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	0.0 Ops/sec
Js	309.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test case is designed to measure the performance of two approaches: using jQuery's `$.each` function and a native JavaScript `for` loop. The benchmark creates an array with 300 elements, iterates over it using both methods, and logs the values to the console.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **jQuery's `$.each` function**: This method uses a callback function to iterate over the array elements.
2. **Native JavaScript `for` loop**: This traditional approach uses an index variable (`j`) to access each element in the array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **jQuery's `$.each` function**:
	+ Pros: Simple, concise code; doesn't require explicit indexing; can be more readable for some developers.
	+ Cons: May incur a performance overhead due to the use of jQuery's internal logic, which can lead to slower execution compared to native JavaScript loops.
* **Native JavaScript `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: Direct control over the iteration process; typically faster and more efficient than using a library like jQuery.
	+ Cons: More verbose code; requires explicit indexing, which can be error-prone.

**Library Used**

The test case uses jQuery's library, specifically the version included from the Google Speed Libraries Dev Guide (`https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide#jquery`). jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. In this context, it's used for its `$.each` function, which provides a convenient way to iterate over arrays.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The test case uses the `for...of` loop syntax, but only in one of the individual test cases. The native JavaScript `for` loop uses traditional indexing (`j`) instead of the more modern and concise `for...of` loop.

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser**: The benchmark is executed on a Firefox 101 browser on a Mac OS X 10.15 desktop platform.
* **Device Platform**: Desktop devices are used for this test case.
* **Operating System**: The test is run on Mac OS X 10.15.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare the performance of iterating over arrays in JavaScript include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.forEach` (a built-in method introduced in ECMAScript 5)
2. Implementing a custom, hand-rolled loop using a `for` loop and indexing
3. Using other libraries or frameworks that provide alternative iteration methods (e.g., React's `map` function)

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the jQuery and native JavaScript approaches used in this benchmark, as they may involve different use cases, performance characteristics, or trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

teste de fors (version: 0)

Teste de foreach jquery e nativo

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Js

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Js

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):