Benchmark: testest - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.5.3/angular.min.js"></script>

​x
 
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.5.3/angular.min.js"></script>
​

Script Preparation code:

var ment = angular.module('ent', []);
	ment.controller('EntCtrl', function($compile,$scope) {
	  window.compileE = compileE;
	  function compileE(code) {
	    var scope = $scope.$new();
	    $compile(code)(scope);
	    scope.$destroy();
	  }
	});
	eMent = angular.element('<div><div ng-controller="EntCtrl"></div></div>');
	angular.element(document.body).append(eMent);
	angular.bootstrap(eMent[0], ['ent']);

 
var ment = angular.module('ent', []);    ment.controller('EntCtrl', function($compile,$scope) {      window.compileE = compileE;      function compileE(code) {        var scope = $scope.$new();        $compile(code)(scope);        scope.$destroy();      }    });    eMent = angular.element('<div><div ng-controller="EntCtrl"></div></div>');    angular.element(document.body).append(eMent);    angular.bootstrap(eMent[0], ['ent']);

Tests:

ng
window.compileE('<div ng-click="click()"></div>');
window.compileE('<div ng-click="click()"></div>');
native
window.compileE('<div onclick="click()"></div>');
window.compileE('<div onclick="click()"></div>');
ngx
window.compileE('<div ng-click="click()"></div>');
window.compileE('<div ng-click="click()"></div>');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
ng
native
ngx

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.78 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ng	7871.1 Ops/sec
native	11609.6 Ops/sec
ngx	8871.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested on MeasureThat.net.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark definition consists of two main parts:

Script Preparation Code: This code sets up an AngularJS module named 'ent' with a controller called 'EntCtrl'. The compileE function is defined inside the controller, which takes a string of HTML code as input and compiles it using the $compile service. The compiled HTML is then stored in the scope variable.
Html Preparation Code: This code includes the AngularJS library via a script tag.

Individual Test Cases

There are three test cases:

ng: This test case uses the ng-click attribute to trigger an event when clicked.
native: This test case uses the onclick attribute instead of the ng-click attribute.
ngx: This test case is similar to the ng test case, but it's not clear what difference it makes since both use ng-click.

Options Compared

The three test cases compare different ways of triggering an event when clicked:

ng-click: An AngularJS-specific syntax for binding a function to a click event.
onclick: A native JavaScript syntax for binding a function to a click event.

Pros and Cons

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

ng-click: Pros:
- Native AngularJS support, which can lead to better performance and less overhead.
- Can be used in conjunction with other AngularJS features like two-way data binding.
Cons:
- Requires the use of an AngularJS module, which may add overhead for non-Angular projects.
onclick: Pros:
- Native JavaScript syntax, which can lead to better performance and less overhead.
- Does not require an additional framework or module.
Cons:
- May not be as expressive or flexible as ng-click, especially when working with complex event handlers.

Library and Purpose

The AngularJS library is used in this benchmark to provide the $compile service, which is responsible for compiling HTML templates into functions that can be executed on a scope. The purpose of using AngularJS here is likely to demonstrate its performance characteristics in compiling HTML code.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON, but it's worth noting that ng-click and onclick both use event handling syntax that is specific to JavaScript and not as widely supported as other languages.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two main parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code sets up an AngularJS module named 'ent' with a controller called 'EntCtrl'. The `compileE` function is defined inside the controller, which takes a string of HTML code as input and compiles it using the `$compile` service. The compiled HTML is then stored in the `scope` variable.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code includes the AngularJS library via a script tag.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **ng**: This test case uses the `ng-click` attribute to trigger an event when clicked.
2. **native**: This test case uses the `onclick` attribute instead of the `ng-click` attribute.
3. **ngx**: This test case is similar to the `ng` test case, but it's not clear what difference it makes since both use `ng-click`.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases compare different ways of triggering an event when clicked:

* `ng-click`: An AngularJS-specific syntax for binding a function to a click event.
* `onclick`: A native JavaScript syntax for binding a function to a click event.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **ng-click**: Pros:
	+ Native AngularJS support, which can lead to better performance and less overhead.
	+ Can be used in conjunction with other AngularJS features like two-way data binding.
* Cons:
	+ Requires the use of an AngularJS module, which may add overhead for non-Angular projects.
* **onclick**: Pros:
	+ Native JavaScript syntax, which can lead to better performance and less overhead.
	+ Does not require an additional framework or module.
* Cons:
	+ May not be as expressive or flexible as `ng-click`, especially when working with complex event handlers.

**Library and Purpose**

The AngularJS library is used in this benchmark to provide the `$compile` service, which is responsible for compiling HTML templates into functions that can be executed on a scope. The purpose of using AngularJS here is likely to demonstrate its performance characteristics in compiling HTML code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON, but it's worth noting that `ng-click` and `onclick` both use event handling syntax that is specific to JavaScript and not as widely supported as other languages.

Related benchmarks:

testest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ng vs native vs ngx

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ng

native

ngx

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):