Benchmark: Johans - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var a = "t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t,t".split();
var cb = (item) => item;

Tests:

lodash
_.each(a, function(item) { cb(item); });
forEach
a.forEach(function(item) { cb(item); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, which is a small piece of code designed to measure the performance of specific JavaScript operations. The benchmark definition consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code initializes an array `a` with 20 elements, all set to `"t"`. It also defines a function `cb` that takes a single argument and returns it unchanged.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This field is empty in the provided benchmark definition, which means no HTML-related setup or cleanup is performed before running the test.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **_lodash**:
	* The benchmark definition is: `_.each(a, function(item) { cb(item); });`
	* This line uses the Lodash library's `each` function to iterate over the array `a` and call the `cb` function for each element.
2. **forEach**:
	* The benchmark definition is: `a.forEach(function(item) { cb(item); });`
	* This line uses the built-in `forEach` method of arrays to iterate over the elements of `a` and call the `cb` function for each element.

**Library and Syntax**

In both test cases, the Lodash library's `each` function is used. The `_.each` function takes an array as its first argument and a callback function as its second argument.

If you're not familiar with Lodash, it's a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a lot of useful functions for tasks like data manipulation, event handling, and more.

In the context of this benchmark, using a library like Lodash provides additional functionality without adding unnecessary complexity. However, if you prefer to use only built-in methods, you can replace `_.each` with `forEach` (as shown in the second test case).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Using `_.each`**:
	* Pros: More concise code, easier to read, and more maintainable.
	* Cons: Requires an external library like Lodash, which may add overhead or dependencies.
2. **Using built-in `forEach`**:
	* Pros: No additional libraries required, uses standard JavaScript methods.
	* Cons: Code might be slightly less readable or maintainable due to the use of a specific method.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Caching**: The benchmark may use caching mechanisms to avoid re-executing the script preparation code on every iteration.
2. **Async Execution**: Some browsers or environments may execute the test cases asynchronously, which can affect the results.
3. **Browser-specific Optimizations**: Different browsers may optimize their internal engines differently, leading to varying performance across different platforms.

**Alternatives**

If you want to create similar benchmarks without using Lodash, you could:

1. Use built-in `forEach` or other array methods like `map`, `filter`, or `reduce`.
2. Implement custom iteration logic using loops and callbacks.
3. Consider using alternative libraries that provide similar functionality, such as Underscore.js (another popular utility library) or jQuery's `each` function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more code and maintenance effort compared to using Lodash.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its options!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.70 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	2438761.2 Ops/sec
forEach	5486819.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Johans (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs forEach

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

forEach

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):