Benchmark: JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na4

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>

Tests:

JQ
$("div").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
Vanilla
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
Vanilla No Map
let divs = document.querySelectorAll("div"); for(let i=0;i<divs.length;i++){ divs[i].innerText = "a"; }
Vanilla getElements
[...document.getElementsByTagName("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
Vanilla getElements No Map
let divs = document.getElementsByTagName("div"); for(let i=0;i<divs.length;i++){ divs[i].innerText = "a"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ
Vanilla
Vanilla No Map
Vanilla getElements
Vanilla getElements No Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which outlines the test to be performed. In this case, we have two main options being compared: jQuery and vanilla JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are four test cases:

1. **JQuery**: This option uses the jQuery library to achieve the desired result.
2. **Vanilla No Map**: This option uses native JavaScript (vanilla) without using the `map()` function, which is a built-in method in JavaScript arrays.
3. **Vanilla getElements**: Similar to the previous one, but this time it uses the `getElementsByTagName()` method instead of `querySelectorAll()`.
4. **Vanilla getElements No Map**: Another vanilla JavaScript option that uses both `getElementsByTagName()` and avoids using the `map()` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each option:

1. **JQuery**: jQuery is a popular library that simplifies DOM manipulation. However, it comes with its own overhead (e.g., file size, execution time) due to the need to load the library.
	* Pros: Easy to use, faster execution compared to vanilla JavaScript
	* Cons: Adds unnecessary dependencies and can be slower for small scripts
2. **Vanilla No Map**: This option uses native JavaScript without relying on built-in methods like `map()`. It's a straightforward approach but might not be as efficient.
	* Pros: Lightweight, easy to understand
	* Cons: Can be slower than using built-in methods or the jQuery library
3. **Vanilla getElements**: Using `getElementsByTagName()` provides an alternative way to select elements in the DOM.
	* Pros: Similar performance to `querySelectorAll()`
	* Cons: May not work well with modern browser security features (e.g., Content Security Policy)
4. **Vanilla getElements No Map**: This option combines both `getElementsByTagName()` and avoiding the `map()` function for added efficiency.
	* Pros: Avoids potential security concerns and potentially faster than other vanilla options
	* Cons: Still requires manual iteration, which might be error-prone

**Libraries and Features**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used extensively. It's a widely adopted library that simplifies DOM manipulation.

One notable feature in JavaScript is **arrows functions (=>)**, which are not being used here since the benchmark focuses on DOM manipulation rather than functional programming. Another aspect is **async/await**, which is also absent from this example as it's not relevant to the current test case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to jQuery or want to explore different approaches for your benchmarks, consider:

1. **Lodash**: A utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks like DOM manipulation.
2. **DOMPurify**: A library focused on sanitizing user-input content to prevent XSS attacks.
3. **Vanilla-async**: An implementation of async/await in vanilla JavaScript.

These alternatives can be useful depending on your specific needs and use cases.

**Tips for Software Engineers**

When working with JavaScript, consider the trade-offs between different approaches:

1. Use libraries like jQuery or Lodash when you need to perform complex DOM manipulation or have a specific task in mind.
2. Opt for vanilla JavaScript when:
	* You're working on small scripts where overhead is not significant.
	* Performance-critical code requires direct access to native methods (e.g., `map()`, `forEach()`).
3. Be mindful of modern browser security features and ensure your implementation respects them.

I hope this explanation helps you navigate the world of JavaScript benchmarks!

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	112386.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla	212060.2 Ops/sec
Vanilla No Map	285218.7 Ops/sec
Vanilla getElements	215676.3 Ops/sec
Vanilla getElements No Map	237803.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JQ vs Vanilla vs Vanilla No Map vs Vanilla getElements vs Vanilla getElements No Map

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQ

Vanilla

Vanilla No Map

Vanilla getElements

Vanilla getElements No Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):