Benchmark: _.forEach VS array.forEach native

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = ['a', 'b', 'c']

Tests:

_.forEach
_.forEach(array, function(value) { console.log(value); });
array.forEach
array.forEach((value, index) => { console.log(value) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.forEach
array.forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases, `_.forEach` and `array.forEach`, which are designed to compare the performance of these two methods for iterating over an array in JavaScript.

**Options compared:**

In this benchmark, we have two options:

1. **Lodash's `_` function with `_.forEach`**: This option uses Lodash's utility function `_`, which is a wrapper around the built-in JavaScript functions. In this case, it uses the `_.forEach` method to iterate over an array.
2. **Native `array.forEach`**: This option uses the native JavaScript method `array.forEach` to iterate over the same array.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash's `_` function with `_.forEach`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a consistent API across different browsers and Node.js versions.
		+ Can be more concise and readable, especially for complex iteration logic.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds extra overhead due to the wrapper function.
		+ May not be as performant as native methods in some cases.
2. **Native `array.forEach`:**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster than using a library or wrapper function.
		+ Less overhead compared to using `_` with `_.forEach`.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more explicit code for handling iteration logic, which can be more verbose.

**Library and its purpose:**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a utility library. It provides a set of functions that can be used in various contexts, such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. The `_` function is a part of Lodash's API and serves as a wrapper around built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have specific optimizations or quirks for certain iteration methods.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or methods to iterate over an array, here are a few options:

* **Array.prototype.forEach()**: This is the native method used by `array.forEach` in JavaScript.
* **For loops**: You can also use traditional `for` loops to iterate over an array, although this approach may not be as concise or readable as using methods like `_.forEach`.
* **Other libraries**: There are several other libraries available that provide iteration methods, such as Ramda and Liskelmer. However, these alternatives may add additional overhead compared to native methods.

In summary, the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two popular iteration methods in JavaScript: Lodash's `_` function with `_.forEach` and native `array.forEach`. The choice between these options depends on your specific use case, personal preference, and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.198 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.forEach	22642.2 Ops/sec
array.forEach	16887.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.forEach VS array.forEach native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.forEach vs array.forEach

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.forEach

array.forEach

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):