Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop2

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var values = ["a", "b", "c"]

Tests:

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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.149 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	2877903.8 Ops/sec
native	1699929.5 Ops/sec

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 MeasureThat.net and explore what's tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: Lodash `forEach` (a popular utility library) and a native `for` loop, against an array of values (`"a"`, `"b"`, `"c"`).

**Lodash `forEach` vs Native `for` Loop**

Both test cases aim to iterate through the `values` array and increment a counter (`count`) for each non-null element.

Here's the key difference:

* Lodash `forEach`: This method takes two arguments: an array (`values`) and a callback function (which returns the current value and its index). The callback is executed for each element in the array, and it has access to the current element's value and its index.
* Native `for` Loop: This is a traditional loop that uses an index variable (`i`) to iterate through the array. It checks each element against null separately.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash `forEach`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Cleaner and more readable code, as the callback function encapsulates the iteration logic.
		- Faster execution times due to optimized native implementation.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional library (Lodash) that might not be available or desirable in all environments.
* **Native `for` Loop**:
	+ Pros:
		- No dependencies on external libraries, making it more suitable for production use cases.
		- Can be optimized and compiled for better performance.
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose code, which might make it harder to read and maintain.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides various functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures. In this benchmark, Lodash's `forEach` method is used to iterate through the array and execute a callback function for each element.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. The code is standard JavaScript, with no advanced features like async/await, Promises, or Web APIs that require specific browser support.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few examples:

* `Array.prototype.forEach()`: This is another built-in method that can be used to iterate through an array. However, its performance might vary depending on the JavaScript engine and implementation.
* `Array.prototype.map()` with an empty function: While not exactly the same as `forEach`, this approach can achieve similar results by mapping each element to a null value.
* Custom iteration using `for...of` loop or a recursive function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, readability, and maintainability trade-offs.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 4 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 one month ago):