Benchmark: JS Iteration - Test1

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(1000).fill(0);

Tests:

For Loop
for(i=0; i< arr; i++){ console.log(arr[i]) }
forEach
arr.forEach((element) => console.log(element));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For Loop
forEach

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'll break down the test case and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that specifies the characteristics of the test. In this case, it defines two benchmarks:

1. "JS Iteration - Test1" with a script preparation code that creates an array of 1000 zeros using `var arr = new Array(1000).fill(0);`.
2. Two individual test cases:
	* "For Loop" with the benchmark definition: `for(i=0; i< arr; i++){\r\n console.log(arr[i]) \r\n}`.
	* "forEach" with the benchmark definition: `arr.forEach((element) => console.log(element));`.

**What's being tested**

The test is measuring the performance of two different approaches to iterate over an array:

1. **For Loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array, accessing each element and logging it to the console.
2. **forEach**: This approach uses the `forEach` method, which is a built-in method in JavaScript that allows iterating over an array without manually incrementing an index.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. For Loop
2. forEach

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **For Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ More control over the iteration process (e.g., manual incrementing of indices).
		+ Can be more efficient for small arrays or specific use cases.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual incrementing of indices, which can lead to off-by-one errors.
		+ Less concise and readable code compared to `forEach`.
2. **forEach**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Reduces the risk of off-by-one errors due to automatic index management.
	* Cons:
		+ Less control over the iteration process.
		+ May be less efficient for very large arrays or specific use cases.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it's worth noting that `forEach` is a built-in method in JavaScript, so no external library is required to use it.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not rely on any advanced features like async/await, promises, or modern ECMAScript syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If `forEach` were not available, another alternative could be using a traditional `for` loop with manual index incrementing, as shown in the "For Loop" benchmark definition. Other alternatives might include:

1. Using `while` loops instead of `for` loops.
2. Using recursion to iterate over arrays (although this approach can lead to stack overflow errors for large arrays).
3. Using third-party libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which provide additional iteration utilities.

In summary, the benchmark is measuring the performance difference between two common approaches to iterating over arrays in JavaScript: traditional `for` loops and the `forEach` method.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Loop	148646.6 Ops/sec
forEach	412.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JS Iteration - Test1 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: For Loop vs forEach

Created: 7 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

For Loop

forEach

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):