Benchmark: Underscore each vs custom while

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97];

function forEach(arr, callback) {
  let i = 0;
  while (i < arr.length) {
    callback(arr[i], i);
    i++;
  }
}

Tests:

Underscore each
var result = _.each(primes, (item, index) => { console.log(item); });
While Loop
forEach(primes, (item, index) => { console.log(item); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Underscore each
While Loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for iterating over an array: using Underscore.js's `each` function and a custom while loop.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Underscore each**: This test case uses the `each` function from Underscore.js to iterate over the `primes` array and log each item to the console.
2. **While Loop**: This test case uses a custom while loop to iterate over the `primes` array and log each item to the console.

**Library: Underscore.js**

Underscore.js is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a set of functional programming helpers, including the `each` function used in this benchmark. The `each` function takes two arguments: an array and a callback function that will be executed for each element in the array.

**Custom While Loop**

The custom while loop is implemented as follows:
```javascript
function forEach(arr, callback) {
  let i = 0;
  while (i < arr.length) {
    callback(arr[i], i);
    i++;
  }
}
```
This loop iterates over the `primes` array using a while loop, calling the provided callback function for each element and incrementing the index variable.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each test case. In this case:

* **Underscore each**: 10,790.697265625 executions per second
* **While Loop**: 8,559.8056640625 executions per second

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Underscore each**:
	+ Pros: concise and readable code, easier to maintain and debug.
	+ Cons: depends on the presence of Underscore.js, may have overhead due to library loading.
* **While Loop**:
	+ Pros: no dependencies on external libraries, more control over loop variables and logic.
	+ Cons: more verbose code, can be harder to read and maintain.

**Other Considerations**

Some other factors that could affect the performance of these benchmarks include:

* The size of the `primes` array: larger arrays may lead to slower execution times due to increased memory allocation and garbage collection.
* The specific hardware and software environment used for running the benchmark: different browsers, operating systems, or architectures may produce varying results.

**Alternative Implementations**

Other approaches to iterating over an array could include:

* Using a `for...of` loop with a `forEach` function
* Using a `map` or `filter` function to process the array elements
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming helpers

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Underscore each	10790.7 Ops/sec
While Loop	8559.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Underscore each vs custom while (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Underscore each vs While Loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Underscore each

While Loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):