Benchmark: testasd - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<input id="Main_LabelConnectionString" />

Script Preparation code:

var isEmpty = function(el){
  return !$.trim(el.val())
}

Tests:

Function outside
var checkEmpty = function(element){ if (isEmpty(element)) { element.removeClass('active'); } else { element.addClass('active'); } }; $('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ checkEmpty($(this)); });
Code inside
$('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ if (isEmpty(element)) { element.removeClass('active'); } else { element.addClass('active'); } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function outside
Code inside

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking data and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Test**

The test measures the performance of two different approaches to toggle an "active" class on an HTML input element based on its value. The test is comparing:

1. **Code inside**: A JavaScript function `checkEmpty` that is defined within a separate scope, called when the user types in the input field.
2. **Function outside**: A similar JavaScript function `checkEmpty` defined globally (outside any other function or scope), also called when the user types in the input field.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Code inside**:
	+ Pros:
		- Encapsulates the logic within a specific scope, reducing namespace pollution.
		- Can be more modular and reusable.
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to memory leaks if not properly cleaned up (e.g., using `clearTimeout` or `document.removeEventListener`).
* **Function outside**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to access and reuse globally.
		- No need for explicit scoping or closures.
	+ Cons:
		- Pollutes the global namespace, potentially causing naming conflicts.
		- Logic can become tightly coupled with other global variables.

**Library usage**

The test uses jQuery (`$.trim`), which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `isEmpty` function is defined as a utility function within the benchmark definition, likely to avoid polluting the global namespace.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the provided code snippets use any advanced JavaScript features or syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **Using event delegation**: Instead of attaching multiple events to individual elements, use a single event listener on a parent element and delegate events to child elements using `on` method.
2. **Using a separate module or library**: Consider using a dedicated JavaScript module (e.g., ES6 modules) or a lightweight library (e.g., jQuery plugin) for handling DOM manipulation and event handling.
3. **Using a different programming paradigm**: If performance is a concern, you might consider exploring alternative programming paradigms, such as functional programming or concurrent programming.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences as a developer.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Function outside	267396.8 Ops/sec
Code inside	287390.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testasd (version: 0)

testing

Comparing performance of: Function outside vs Code inside

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function outside

Code inside

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):