Benchmark: Array.prototype.forEach vs _.each vs js for2

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Tests:

foreach
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; params.forEach(param => index++);
lodash each
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; _.each(params, param => index++);
for
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; for(var i in params){ index++; }
for 2
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var index = 0; var i; for(i in params){ index++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
foreach
lodash each
for
for 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to iterate over an array:

1. `Array.prototype.forEach`
2. `_` (Lodash) `each`
3. Traditional `for` loop

The benchmark is testing the performance of these three approaches on a small test case with four elements: `["hello", true, 7]`.

**Options Compared**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach**: This method iterates over an array using a callback function. It returns the number of elements processed.
2. **_ (Lodash) each**: This is a utility function from Lodash that iterates over an array using a callback function. It also returns the number of elements processed.
3. **Traditional for loop**: This is a classic loop construct that uses a `for` statement to iterate over an array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each option:

1. **Array.prototype.forEach**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, concise, and readable.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance in certain situations (e.g., when using large arrays).
2. **_ (Lodash) each**:
	* Pros: Convenient, easy to use, and optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires Lodash library, which may add overhead.
3. **Traditional for loop**:
	* Pros: Control over iteration flow, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: More verbose, less readable.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library (`_.each` function). The `forEach` method is a built-in method on Array prototypes in modern JavaScript (ES6+).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. However, note that some optimizations may be affected by modern browser behavior, such as:

* **ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) features**: While not directly related to performance optimization, using ES6 features like `let` and `const` can help with variable scoping and readability.
* **Web Workers**: Not used in this benchmark, but Web Workers could potentially be used to parallelize computations on large arrays.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an iteration method, consider the trade-offs between ease of use, performance, and control. In general:

* For small to medium-sized arrays, `Array.prototype.forEach` or `_ (Lodash) each` may be sufficient.
* For larger arrays or performance-critical code, a traditional `for` loop might be more suitable.
* Keep in mind that modern JavaScript engines often optimize built-in methods like `forEach`, so the impact of using a library function might be reduced.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these iteration methods:

1. **Use a different iterator**: Consider using other iterator constructs, such as `Array.prototype.reduce` or `Map.prototype.forEach`.
2. **Choose a different loop construct**: Depending on your language and use case, you might prefer a different loop construct, like `while`, `do-while`, or a more functional approach with `forEach` and higher-order functions.
3. **Use Web Workers or parallel computing libraries**: If you're working with large datasets, consider using Web Workers or parallel computing libraries to distribute the workload across multiple CPU cores.

In summary, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of three iteration methods on small arrays. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which method best suits their specific needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Mac OS X 10.15.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
foreach	192632064.0 Ops/sec
lodash each	5294153.0 Ops/sec
for	6367245.0 Ops/sec
for 2	6373116.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.forEach vs _.each vs js for2 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: foreach vs lodash each vs for vs for 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

foreach

lodash each

for

for 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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