Benchmark: JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na0

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>

Tests:

JQ
$("div").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
Vanilla
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ
Vanilla

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The provided JSON defines two benchmarks, `JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na0`, which compares the performance of jQuery (a JavaScript library) versus vanilla JavaScript (without any libraries). The benchmarks are designed to measure the execution time of specific tasks on a web page.

**Options being compared:**

1. **jQuery**: A JavaScript library that provides a simplified way to interact with HTML elements.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: JavaScript code that doesn't rely on any external libraries or frameworks.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros:
		- Simplifies DOM manipulation, making it easier to work with HTML elements.
		- Provides a consistent and reliable way to update element content.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an additional dependency (the jQuery library itself), which may slow down page loading times.
		- May lead to unnecessary overhead due to the library's size and complexity.
* **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution time since it doesn't rely on a third-party library.
		- More control over the code, as you don't have to worry about the library's implementation details.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more boilerplate code and manual DOM manipulation.
		- Can be less readable and maintainable for complex tasks.

**Library:**
In this benchmark, jQuery is used in its `each` method to iterate over a collection of HTML elements. The purpose of using jQuery is likely to demonstrate its capabilities for simple DOM manipulation tasks.

**Special JS feature/syntax:** None mentioned.

Now, let's take a look at the individual test cases:

**Individual Test Cases:**

1. **JQ**: This test case uses jQuery's `each` method to iterate over a collection of HTML elements and updates their text content.
```javascript
$("<div>").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
```
This code is equivalent to the vanilla JavaScript version, but uses jQuery's convenience methods.

2. **Vanilla**: This test case uses Array.prototype.map() and document.querySelectorAll() to iterate over a collection of HTML elements and updates their text content.
```javascript
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
```
This code is a more verbose equivalent of the jQuery version, using native JavaScript methods.

**Latest Benchmark Result:**
The latest benchmark result shows that the vanilla JavaScript approach outperforms jQuery in terms of execution time. The test results are likely influenced by various factors such as browser optimization, caching, and hardware performance.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to consider alternative approaches for this benchmark, some options could be:

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for working with arrays and objects.
* **React or Angular**: Front-end frameworks that use virtual DOMs and provide optimized rendering mechanisms for complex web applications.
* **Native Web APIs**: HTML5 APIs such as Web Workers, Web Storage, or Web Audio API can be used to perform tasks without relying on JavaScript libraries.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code and test setup.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQ	66176.6 Ops/sec
Vanilla	127076.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na0 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JQ vs Vanilla

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQ

Vanilla

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):