Benchmark: uderscore each vs jQuery each

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="http://underscorejs.ru/underscore.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:


// Populate the base array
var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
  arr[i] = i;
}

function fn(a) {
  return a * 2 * 5;
}

Tests:

underscore.each
_.forEach(arr,fn)
jQuery each
$.each(arr,fn);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
underscore.each
jQuery each

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. `_.forEach(arr,fn)` using Underscore.js library
2. `$().each(arr,fn)` using jQuery library

These test cases aim to measure the performance of iterating over an array using different libraries: Underscore.js and jQuery.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of two approaches:

1. **Underscore.js `forEach`**: This method iterates over an array using a callback function (`fn`) and returns undefined.
2. **jQuery `.each`**: This method also iterates over an array using a callback function (`fn`) but is part of jQuery's API.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Underscore.js `forEach`**

Pros:

* Lightweight: Underscore.js is a smaller library compared to jQuery.
* Customizable: The `forEach` method can be easily extended or overridden.

Cons:

* Less widely used than jQuery, which might affect compatibility and support.
* May require additional setup for some developers familiar with other libraries.

**jQuery `.each`**

Pros:

* Widely supported and well-documented: As a part of the jQuery library, `.each` is commonly used and has extensive documentation.
* Easier to learn and use for developers already familiar with jQuery.

Cons:

* Larger library size compared to Underscore.js.
* May introduce additional overhead due to the larger library.

**Library Purpose**

Both Underscore.js and jQuery are popular JavaScript libraries used for various tasks, such as:

* Underscore.js: Utility functions, functional programming, and data manipulation.
* jQuery: DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax interactions.

In this benchmark, both libraries provide similar functionality, but with different APIs. The test case uses these libraries to measure the performance of iterating over an array using each library's API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark definition. If any special features or syntax were used, I would have explained them along with the test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Underscore.js and jQuery, here are some options:

* Lodash: A popular alternative to Underscore.js, offering a similar set of utility functions.
* Ramda: A functional programming library that provides a different set of APIs for data manipulation and transformation.
* Vanilla JavaScript: For simple tasks, vanilla JavaScript can be used without relying on external libraries.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your project's requirements and your personal preferences.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
underscore.each	104446.1 Ops/sec
jQuery each	57254.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

uderscore each vs jQuery each (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: underscore.each vs jQuery each

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

underscore.each

jQuery each

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):