Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop v2

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; const len = values.length for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) { if (values[i].a != 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/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	2197987.2 Ops/sec
native	2244024.0 Ops/sec

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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to iterate over an array: using `_.forEach` from Lodash (a utility library) versus a traditional `for` loop with index iteration (`i`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash `_.forEach`**: This approach uses the `forEach` function from Lodash, which is a higher-order function that iterates over an array and calls a callback function for each element.
2. **Traditional `for` loop with index iteration (`i`)**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array, where the variable `i` represents the index of each element.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash `_.forEach`**

Pros:

* More concise and expressive code
* Easier to write and maintain for complex iteration scenarios

Cons:

* May introduce overhead due to the use of a higher-order function
* Requires an additional library dependency (Lodash)

**Traditional `for` loop with index iteration (`i`)**

Pros:

* Typically faster and more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of a higher-order function
* No additional library dependencies

Cons:

* More verbose and less expressive code
* May require more maintenance for complex iteration scenarios

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a utility library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers, including `forEach`. Its purpose is to simplify common tasks and make code more concise and readable. In this benchmark, Lodash's `forEach` function is used as the iteration approach.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of Lodash introduces a subtle dependency on this library, which may affect the overall test results.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, some alternative options to consider:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach` (instead of Lodash's `_.forEach`)
* Implementing a custom iterator function
* Comparing performance with other iteration approaches, such as using `map`, `filter`, or `reduce`
* Adding additional variables or computations within the loop to simulate more realistic scenarios

Keep in mind that each alternative may introduce new challenges and considerations, so be sure to carefully evaluate the trade-offs when modifying the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop v2 (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):