Benchmark: For loop test #2

Tests:

simple for
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { console.log(arr[i]); }
forEach
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; arr.forEach(val => { console.log(val); });
for..of
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; for (const val of arr) { console.log(val); }
Map
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; arr.map(val => { console.log(val); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple for
forEach
for..of
Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definitions and explain what's being tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition Overview**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It contains:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark.
* `Description`: A brief description of the benchmark (not used in this example).
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These are empty fields, indicating that no special setup or HTML code is required to run the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four test cases:

1. **"simple for"`**: This test case measures the execution time of a traditional for loop that iterates over an array and logs each element.
2. **"forEach"`**: This test case measures the execution time of the `Array.prototype.forEach()` method, which also iterates over an array and executes a callback function for each element.
3. **"for..of"`**: This test case measures the execution time of the `for...of` loop syntax, which is a newer way to iterate over arrays.
4. **"Map"`**: This test case measures the execution time of the `Array.prototype.map()` method, which creates a new array by applying a callback function to each element.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different iteration methods:

1. **Traditional for loop (`simple for`)**
2. **`forEach` method**
3. **`for...of` loop syntax**
4. **`map()` method**

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Traditional for loop (simple for)**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, easy to understand, and well-documented.
	+ Cons: may be slower than other methods due to the overhead of the loop variable (`i`).
* **`forEach` method**:
	+ Pros: concise syntax, easier to read, and less error-prone than traditional for loops.
	+ Cons: may have performance penalties due to the function call overhead.
* **`for...of` loop syntax**:
	+ Pros: modern syntax, more efficient than traditional for loops, and easier to read.
	+ Cons: still a relatively new feature, may not be supported in older browsers or environments.
* **`map()` method**:
	+ Pros: concise syntax, easy to use, and creates a new array with the transformed values.
	+ Cons: may have performance penalties due to the creation of a new array.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing an iteration method, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If you need to iterate over large datasets, traditional for loops or `for...of` loops might be faster than `forEach` or `map()` methods.
* Code readability: Choose methods with concise and readable syntax if you want to improve code maintainability.
* Browser support: Make sure the iteration method is supported by your target browsers.

**Alternative Iteration Methods**

Other iteration methods that are not included in this benchmark, but might be worth considering:

* `reduce()` method
* `every()` method
* `some()` method

Each of these methods has its own use cases and performance characteristics.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 14_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 14 on iOS 14.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
simple for	133579.7 Ops/sec
forEach	109286.1 Ops/sec
for..of	123991.0 Ops/sec
Map	104189.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

For loop test #2 (version: 0)

...

Comparing performance of: simple for vs forEach vs for..of vs Map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simple for

forEach

for..of

Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):