Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop 2

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; for (var i = 0; i < values.length; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }
native_fix
var count = 0; for (var i = 0, max=values.length; i < max; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }
native forEach
var count = 0; values.forEach(function(v) { if (v.a != null) count++; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native
native_fix
native 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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of three approaches for iterating over an array: `_.forEach` from Lodash, native `for` loop, and a modified native `for` loop (`native_fix`). The test case uses a sample array with three objects, each containing an "a" property.

**Benchmark Definitions**

The benchmark definitions are provided in the following format:

```javascript
var count = 0;
_{.forEach(values, function(v,i) {...}
```

```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < values.length; i++) {...}
```

```javascript
for (var i = 0, max=values.length; i < max; i++) {...}
```

**Options Compared**

The three options compared are:

1. `_.forEach` from Lodash: This method iterates over the array using a callback function that receives two arguments: the current element and its index.
2. Native `for` loop: This is a traditional loop construct that uses a variable to keep track of the current index.
3. Modified native `for` loop (`native_fix`): This variant adds an extra step by initializing the maximum value of the array length before the loop, reducing the number of iterations.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **_.forEach` from Lodash**
	* Pros:
		+ Convenient and expressive syntax
		+ Can handle arrays with arbitrary elements
	* Cons:
		+ Adds overhead due to the callback function and library dependencies
2. **Native `for` loop**
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and fast
		+ Allows for direct access to array indices
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual indexing and incrementing
3. **Modified native `for` loop (`native_fix`)**

* Pros:
		+ Reduces iterations by initializing the maximum value beforehand
		+ Fast and lightweight
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as readable or maintainable due to the extra complexity

**Library Used**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including `_.forEach`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any specific special feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome) have various optimization techniques and features like `Let` and `const` hoisting, which can impact performance.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to these three options, there are other approaches for iterating over arrays in JavaScript:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach()`**: This method is similar to Lodash's `_.forEach`, but it only iterates over the array's elements, without requiring a callback function.
2. **Arrow functions`: Arrow functions can be used as callbacks or loops, providing a concise and readable way to iterate over arrays.
3. ** Generators`: Generators are a type of iterable that allows for more control over iteration, including suspension and resumption.

Keep in mind that the choice of iteration method depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/76.0.3809.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 76 on Mac OS X 10.14.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	3013684.8 Ops/sec
native	1959680.8 Ops/sec
native_fix	3442749.2 Ops/sec
native forEach	9972754.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native vs native_fix vs native forEach

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

native_fix

native 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):