Benchmark: lodash forEach vs for i loop decremental

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

lodash.forEach
var count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })
native
var count = 0; for (var i = values.length - 1; i > 0; i--) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.forEach
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. `lodash forEach`: This test case uses the Lodash library, specifically the `forEach` function, to iterate over an array of objects.
2. `native`: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop with decrementing index variable (`i`) to iterate over the same array of objects.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

* **Lodash `forEach`**: Uses the Lodash library's `forEach` function to iterate over the array. This approach likely provides some benefits, such as:
	+ Simplified code: The `forEach` function simplifies the iteration logic.
	+ Potential performance overhead due to the library's abstraction and overhead.
* **Traditional `for` loop**: Uses a manual `for` loop with decrementing index variable (`i`) to iterate over the array. This approach likely has:
	+ Fewer dependencies: No external libraries are required, reducing potential overhead.
	+ More control: The developer has direct access to the iteration logic.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash `forEach`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simplified code
		- Easy to maintain and understand (for those familiar with Lodash)
	+ Cons:
		- Potential performance overhead due to library abstraction and overhead
		- May not be suitable for all environments or use cases
* **Traditional `for` loop**:
	+ Pros:
		- Fewer dependencies
		- More control over the iteration logic
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose code
		- Requires manual index management

**Library and Its Purpose**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions to simplify common tasks, such as array manipulation. In this benchmark, `forEach` is used to iterate over an array of objects.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. The code uses standard JavaScript and Lodash library functionality.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite the benchmark using other alternatives, some options could be:

* **Using `Array.prototype.forEach`**: This is a built-in method on arrays that can simplify the iteration logic.
* **Using `for...of` loop**: This is a newer syntax for iterating over arrays and objects, which can provide more flexibility and readability.
* **Using a library like Ramda**: Ramda is another utility library that provides various functions for functional programming, including array manipulation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs and requirements compared to the Lodash `forEach` and traditional `for` loop approaches.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.forEach	2784838.2 Ops/sec
native	4095007.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash forEach vs for i loop decremental (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.forEach vs native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.forEach

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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