Benchmark: forEach includes vs Lodash difference

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

forEach includes
var params = [ "hello", "sname" ]; var other = [ "sname", "red", "wine" ]; var r = params.forEach(g => { if (!other.includes(g)) { other.push(g) } })
Lodash different
var params = [ "hello", "sname" ]; var other = [ "sname", "red", "wine" ]; var r = other.concat(_.difference(other, params))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach includes
Lodash different

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The benchmark tests two approaches to add elements from one array (`params`) to another array (`other`) if they are not already present, using either built-in `forEach` loop or a library function from Lodash.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Built-in `forEach` loop**: This approach uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the `params` array and checks for each element's presence in the `other` array using the `includes` method.
2. **Lodash `.difference()` method with `.concat()`**: This approach uses Lodash's `.difference()` function to find elements present in `params` but not in `other`, then concatenates these differences into a new array.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Built-in `forEach` loop**:
	* Pros:
		+ No dependencies on external libraries.
		+ Native JavaScript implementation.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of checking for presence in each iteration.
		+ Less readable code, as it requires manual looping and conditional checks.
2. **Lodash `.difference()` method with `.concat()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Utilizes optimized library functions.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an external dependency (Lodash).
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to the library's functionality.

**Library:**
In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `.difference()` method, which returns a new array containing elements that are in `params` but not in `other`. The resulting differences are then concatenated into a new array using `concat()`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
None mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, if we were to explore more advanced JavaScript features, we might consider:

* **Arrow functions**: Used in both benchmark examples for concise function definitions.
* **Template literals**: Not used in this example, but could be useful for creating strings.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you prefer not to use built-in `forEach` or Lodash's `.difference()` method, other alternatives include:

1. Using a library like Underscore.js, which provides similar functionality as Lodash.
2. Implementing your own solution using native JavaScript methods, such as `filter()` and `some()`.
3. Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `for...of` loops or `Array.prototype.filter()` method.

Keep in mind that each alternative's performance and readability will vary depending on the specific implementation and use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach includes	11807000.0 Ops/sec
Lodash different	823330.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

forEach includes vs Lodash difference (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach includes vs Lodash different

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach includes

Lodash different

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):