According to thisfor is pretty much always faster than forEach, so if performance is more important than concise code (and it usually should be) a for loop is likely a better choice.
Correct, as the forEach call will incur a penalty invoking the lambda expression. forEach could have equivalent performance if the JIT inlines the lamba method body, but it's safe to say always expect forEach to be a bit slower.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
According to this
foris pretty much always faster thanforEach, so if performance is more important than concise code (and it usually should be) aforloop is likely a better choice.Correct, as the
forEachcall will incur a penalty invoking the lambda expression.forEachcould have equivalent performance if the JIT inlines the lamba method body, but it's safe to say always expectforEachto be a bit slower.