Benchmark: lodash.each vs lodah.forEach

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.10/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

lodash.each
_.each(value, function(v,i) {})
lodash.forEach
_.forEach(value, function(v,i) {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.each
lodash.forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance difference between two methods from the Lodash library: `lodash.each` and `lodash.forEach`. These methods are used for iterating over arrays or objects, but they have some differences in their behavior and usage.

**Options compared:**

* `_.each`: This method iterates over an array or object using a callback function that takes two arguments: the current value (`v`) and its index (`i`). The callback is called only once for each element, without returning any value.
* `_.forEach`: This method also iterates over an array or object using a callback function with two arguments: the current value (`v`) and its index (`i`). However, unlike `_.each`, `_.forEach` returns the value of the callback function (or `undefined` if the callback doesn't return anything), allowing the caller to use the result of the iteration.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **_.each**: This method is more lightweight and faster since it only calls the callback once per element, without returning any value. However, this means that the caller cannot use the result of the iteration.
* `_.forEach`: This method is more flexible since it returns the value of the callback function (or `undefined` if not returned), allowing the caller to process the result in some way. However, this comes at a slight performance cost compared to `_.each`.

**Other considerations:**

* The Lodash library provides both methods as a way to abstract away the differences between array and object iteration, making it easier for developers to write generic code that works across both.
* In modern JavaScript, you can use the built-in `for...of` loop or `map()`/`filter()` methods, which are often faster and more efficient than relying on Lodash.

**Library usage:**

The test uses the Lodash library version 4.17.10. Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a set of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, object iteration, and string manipulation.

**JavaScript features or syntax:**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `let` or `const` declarations (not shown in this code snippet) would affect how the test is run, but not the fundamental behavior being compared.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative methods to iterate over arrays or objects, some common choices include:

* Built-in `for...of` loop
* `map()` and `filter()` methods (if applicable)
* Array or object iteration using index-based access (e.g., `arr[i]`)
* Using a third-party library like Ramda

In general, the choice of iteration method depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.each	3669085.8 Ops/sec
lodash.forEach	3170688.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash.each vs lodah.forEach (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: lodash.each vs lodash.forEach

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

lodash.each

lodash.forEach

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):