Benchmark: uderscorejs (1.13.6) vs jQuery (3.7.1) -- each

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.7.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="//underscorejs.org/underscore-esm.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

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year 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	98087.9 Ops/sec
jQuery each	57546.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing the performance of two libraries: Underscore.js (1.13.6) and jQuery (3.7.1). The benchmark focuses on measuring the execution time of specific methods in each library.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a base array `arr` with 1000 elements, each containing a unique integer value. It also defines a simple function `fn(a)` that takes an element as input and returns its value multiplied by 2 and then by 5.

The script preparation code is identical for both libraries, ensuring a fair comparison of the methods in question.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes links to download the Underscore.js and jQuery libraries. These libraries are used in the individual test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Underscore.js `_.forEach(arr, fn)`**: This test case measures the execution time of the `forEach` method from Underscore.js, passing the `arr` array and the `fn` function as arguments.
2. **jQuery `$().each(arr, fn);`**: This test case measures the execution time of the `.each` method from jQuery, passing the `arr` array and the `fn` function as arguments.

**Library Overview**

* **Underscore.js (1.13.6)**: Underscore.js is a utility-first JavaScript library that provides functional programming helpers, including methods for iterating over arrays like `forEach`. It aims to be small and efficient.
* **jQuery (3.7.1)**: jQuery is a widely-used JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. Its `.each` method allows iterating over arrays or other iterables.

**Comparison of Options**

The two test cases compare the performance of `_.forEach(arr, fn)` in Underscore.js versus `$().each(arr, fn);` in jQuery. The main differences are:

* **Method syntax**: Underscore.js uses a functional programming style with `_.forEach`, while jQuery uses a more traditional DOM-style approach with `.each`.
* **Performance overhead**: jQuery's method may introduce additional overhead due to its larger size and complexity compared to Underscore.js.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Underscore.js `_.forEach(arr, fn)`**:
	+ Pros: Small footprint, lightweight, functional programming style.
	+ Cons: May not be as familiar or intuitive for developers without experience with functional programming.
* **jQuery `$().each(arr, fn);`**:
	+ Pros: Widespread adoption and familiarity among developers, more traditional DOM-style approach.
	+ Cons: Larger size and potential performance overhead compared to Underscore.js.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no specific special JS feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both libraries use standard JavaScript concepts and methods.

**Other Considerations**

* **Testing Environment**: The test cases are executed on a Chrome 113 browser, running on a Linux Desktop.
* **Benchmarking Approach**: The benchmark measures the number of executions per second for each method.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or methods, some options might include:

* **Lo-Dash (1.0.0)**: A lightweight alternative to Underscore.js with a similar functional programming style.
* **Lodash (4.17.21)**: The next generation of the Lodash project, offering improved performance and features over previous versions.
* **Svelte (3.46.2)**: A modern JavaScript framework that aims to provide a more efficient and lightweight way to build web applications.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different strengths and weaknesses compared to Underscore.js and jQuery.

Related benchmarks:

uderscorejs (1.13.6) vs jQuery (3.7.1) -- each (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: underscore.each vs jQuery each

Created: one year 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 2 months ago):