Benchmark: function call in for vs foreach vs some vs for..of

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(100);
var fn = val => val;

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach
some
for..of

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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The website uses JSON to define a benchmark, which includes:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark.
* `Description`: A brief description of the test case.
* `Script Preparation Code`: The code used to prepare the input data before running the benchmark. In this case, it's creating an array with 100 elements and defining a function `fn` that takes a single argument.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating no HTML-specific setup is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The website defines four test cases:

1. `for`: Iterates over the array using a traditional `for` loop.
2. `foreach`: Uses the `forEach` method to iterate over the array.
3. `some`: Uses the `some` method to check if any element in the array meets a certain condition.
4. `for..of`: Iterates over the array using the `for...of` loop.

**Comparison of Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four options:

* `for` and `foreach` loops are both traditional approaches that involve manual iteration.
* `some` method is a higher-order function that iterates over the array, but with a different logic than traditional loops.
* `for...of` loop is a newer syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that provides a more concise and expressive way to iterate over arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief summary:

* **Traditional `for` loop**: Simple, efficient, and easy to understand. However, it requires manual indexing, which can be error-prone.
* **`foreach` method**: Similar to traditional loops, but with less code duplication. However, it may have performance overhead due to the additional function call.
* **`some` method**: Provides a concise way to iterate over arrays and check conditions. However, it may not be as efficient as traditional loops or `for...of` loops for large datasets.
* **`for...of` loop**: A modern and expressive syntax that eliminates manual indexing and reduces code duplication. However, it may require more time to learn and understand.

**Special JS Feature: Arrow Functions**

In the provided benchmark script preparation code, an arrow function is used:

```javascript
var fn = val => val;
```

An arrow function is a concise way to define small, anonymous functions. It's equivalent to a traditional function declaration with `function` keyword. The main advantage of arrow functions is that they eliminate the need for the `this` context and provide a more readable syntax.

**Library: None**

There are no external libraries required in this benchmark. All code is self-contained within the provided script preparation code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, you could consider alternative options:

* Using a test framework like Jest or Mocha to automate testing.
* Utilizing a profiler like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector to measure performance.
* Implementing different iteration strategies, such as using `map()` or `filter()` methods.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison of traditional loop approaches and newer syntax options in JavaScript. It's an excellent resource for developers looking to improve their understanding of iteration strategies and performance optimization techniques.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	98598.7 Ops/sec
foreach	423650.0 Ops/sec
some	8583535.0 Ops/sec
for..of	103853.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

function call in for vs foreach vs some vs for..of (version: 0)

Compare loop performance

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

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

foreach

some

for..of

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):