Benchmark: for vs foreach vs for..of (Dinahmoe test)

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(1000);

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { array[i]; }
foreach
array.forEach(function(i) { array[i]; });
for..of
for (var i of array) { array[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach
for..of

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 Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of three different loop types in JavaScript:

1. Traditional `for` loop
2. `forEach` loop
3. `for...of` loop (also known as "array iteration" or " iterator loops")

These loop types are used to iterate over an array and perform some operation on each element.

**Loop Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three loop options, which can be summarized as follows:

* **Traditional `for` loop**: This loop uses a manual index variable (`i`) to access each element in the array. It's a more low-level approach that allows for fine-grained control.
* **`forEach` loop**: This loop uses the built-in `forEach()` method, which is a higher-level API that abstracts away some of the iteration details. It's often preferred for its concise syntax and ease of use.
* **`for...of` loop**: This loop uses the new "iterator loops" introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows iterating over an array without explicitly managing an index variable.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some key pros and cons of each loop option:

* **Traditional `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: Fine-grained control, no dependency on the array's length.
	+ Cons: More verbose code, requires manual indexing.
* **`forEach` loop**:
	+ Pros: Concise syntax, easy to read and write, no explicit indexing required.
	+ Cons: Less flexible than `for` loops, may have performance overhead due to method invocation.
* **`for...of` loop**:
	+ Pros: Modern, concise syntax, easy to read and write, eliminates the need for manual indexing.
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Library and Special JS Features**

None of these loops require any additional libraries or special JavaScript features beyond standard ES6 syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these loop options, consider the following factors:

* **Readability and maintainability**: If code readability is crucial, `for...of` loops might be a better choice due to their concise and expressive syntax.
* **Performance**: For low-latency or high-throughput applications, traditional `for` loops might offer slight performance advantages due to reduced overhead from method invocation.
* **Browser support**: If you need to support older browsers or environments that don't support `for...of` loops, consider using the traditional `for` loop.

**Alternatives**

If these specific benchmarks aren't your cup of tea, MeasureThat.net offers a wide range of other JavaScript benchmarks and microbenchmarks. You can explore different categories, such as:

* **Math and Statistics**: Benchmark performance of mathematical operations like arithmetic, trigonometry, or statistical functions.
* **String Manipulation**: Compare the speed of string concatenation, substring extraction, or regular expression matching.
* **DOM Manipulation**: Test the performance of DOM element creation, insertion, or removal.

Feel free to explore these and other options on MeasureThat.net!

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/88.0.4324.96 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	7451.7 Ops/sec
foreach	510260.6 Ops/sec
for..of	11619.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs foreach vs for..of (Dinahmoe test) (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach vs for..of

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

foreach

for..of

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):