Interesting. I decided to actually try my test above, and on 1000000 items, the for-each version takes ~50 milliseconds, versus ~25 milliseconds for the explicitly indexed loop. When doing some actual work in the loop (a trace), the numbers are 41.9 seconds for the for-each and 41.1 seconds for the indexed for. On a loop with a trace with 100 items, both forms take ~5 milliseconds. This is rather unscientific, but I don't have the profiler available (will it ever make it to Linux, Adobe?).
So yes, it looks like for-each is a lot slower in some cases, but I'll maintain it still probably won't make a difference unless you've got a massive loop that does very little, or a deeply nested set of loops. Consider also the readability and maintainability benefits of a for-each: unless you need the index, it's just one more place to introduce bugs when refactoring, and it's cognitive cruft when trying to follow what's going on. -- Maciek Sakrejda Truviso, Inc. http://www.truviso.com -----Original Message----- From: Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [flexcoders] speed of the "for each" looping Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:30:19 -0800 For each should be much slower than a basic iterator as it has to walk the object’s properties. For each (var p:* in someObject) And For (var p:String in SomeObject) Probably run at the same rate. From:[email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cato Paus Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] speed of the "for each" looping Hi, all you experts :) I'm tying to speed up my application and I use a lot of exsample for (var i:int = 0; i < 5; i++) { trace(i); } so is the "for each" looping faster ?
