Benchmark: for loops comparison 2

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {a: 100303}, {a: 3040494}, {a: 30310}, {a: 100303}, {a: 3040494}, {a: 30310}, {a: 100303}, {a: 3040494}];
var sum = 0;
var action = function(value) { if (value != null) { sum += value; } };

Tests:

for i
for (var i = 0, length = values.length; i < length; i++) { action(values[i]); }
Array.prototype.forEach
values.forEach(function (value) { action(value); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for i
Array.prototype.forEach

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition represents a test case that compares two approaches for iterating over an array: traditional `for` loops and `Array.prototype.forEach`. The script preparation code defines an array `values` with 10 elements, each containing a value to be processed. A variable `sum` is initialized to accumulate the results.

**Approaches Compared**

Two approaches are compared:

1. **Traditional For Loops**: The traditional approach uses a `for` loop to iterate over the `values` array. In this case, the loop iterates 10 times, and for each iteration, it calls the `action` function with the current value.
2. **Array.prototype.forEach**: The second approach uses the `forEach` method of the `Array.prototype`. This method also iterates over the elements of the `values` array, but in a more concise and readable way.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional For Loops**
	+ Pros:
		- More control over iteration variables.
		- Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., indexing).
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and maintainable code.
		- May lead to performance issues due to the overhead of loop variable management.
* **Array.prototype.forEach**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code.
		- Optimized for iteration over arrays.
		- Reduced chance of indexing errors.
	+ Cons:
		- Less control over iteration variables.
		- May not be as optimized for specific use cases (e.g., indexing).

**Other Considerations**

* **Action Function**: The `action` function is used to accumulate the values in the `sum` variable. This approach ensures that the results are processed correctly, regardless of which iteration method is chosen.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no external libraries or special JavaScript features are used beyond what's part of the standard library.

Now, let's look at some alternative approaches:

* **Using `for...of` Loop**: If available (ECMAScript 2015+), a `for...of` loop could be used instead of traditional `for` loops. This would provide a more concise and readable way to iterate over arrays.
* **Using Custom Iterators**: Another approach could involve creating custom iterators or using libraries like `p-iterable` to optimize the iteration process. However, this would add complexity and might not lead to significant performance gains.

In summary, MeasureThat.net provides a simple and effective benchmarking framework for comparing different JavaScript iteration approaches. The comparison between traditional `for` loops and `Array.prototype.forEach` highlights the trade-offs between control, readability, and performance.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

Browser/OS: IE 11 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for i	387377.5 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.forEach	355949.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for loops comparison 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: for i vs Array.prototype.forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

for i

Array.prototype.forEach

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):