Benchmark: lodash forEach vs array.forEach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; values.forEach(function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using Lodash's `forEach` method and the built-in `forEach` method of JavaScript arrays (`array.forEach`).

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash's `forEach`**: This approach uses the `_` alias from Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript. The `forEach` function is designed to iterate over an array-like object and execute a provided callback function for each element.
2. **Built-in `array.forEach`**: This approach uses the standard `forEach` method of JavaScript arrays, which is also designed to iterate over an array-like object and execute a provided callback function for each element.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash's `forEach`**:
	+ Pros: Lodash provides additional functionality beyond just iteration, such as handling null values, reducing memory allocation, and providing more flexibility in the callback function.
	+ Cons: Using a library adds an extra dependency and might introduce performance overhead due to the overhead of importing and initializing the library.
* **Built-in `array.forEach`**:
	+ Pros: This approach is lightweight and doesn't require any additional dependencies. It's also optimized for performance, as it's part of the JavaScript standard library.
	+ Cons: The built-in implementation might be less flexible than Lodash's version, especially when dealing with edge cases or advanced iteration logic.

**Library**

The Lodash library used in this benchmark is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and object manipulation. In this case, the `forEach` function is used to iterate over an array.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different iteration approaches: using a utility library (`Lodash`) versus the built-in implementation of the same functionality (`array.forEach`).

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	5160625.5 Ops/sec
native	15400274.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs array.forEach (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):