Benchmark: Test 001 jQuery vs JS

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div id='container'></div>

Tests:

jQuery
$('#container').prepend( $('<div class="sgj"><label for="hideGAs"><input id="hideGAs" type="checkbox"/>Hide joined Giveaways</label></div>'), );
JS
const div = document.createElement('div'); const label = document.createElement('label'); const input = document.createElement('input'); div.className = 'sgj'; input.id = 'hideGAs'; input.type = 'checkbox'; label.textContent = 'Hide joined Giveaways'; label.htmlFor = 'hideGAs'; label.prepend(input); document.querySelector('#container').prepend(div.appendChild(label));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/117.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 117 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	72918.6 Ops/sec
JS	149189.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test cases measure the performance of two JavaScript approaches: jQuery and plain JavaScript (JS) for creating a simple HTML structure with a checkbox. The benchmark is designed to compare the execution speed of these two methods on a Linux desktop machine running Chrome 117.

**Script Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads jQuery version 3.3.1 from a CDN:
```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
```
This code sets up the basic HTML structure with a `div` element, which will be used as a container for the checkbox and label.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **jQuery**: The benchmark definition uses jQuery's `prepend()` method to add a new `div` element with a checkbox and label inside it.
```javascript
$('#container').prepend(
    $('<div class=\"sgj\"><label for=\"hideGAs\"><input id=\"hideGAs\" type=\"checkbox\"/>Hide joined Giveaways</label></div>'),
);
```
This code uses jQuery's Document Object Model (DOM) manipulation to create and append the HTML structure.

2. **JS**: The benchmark definition creates the HTML structure programmatically using JavaScript's `document.createElement()` method.
```javascript
const div = document.createElement('div');
const label = document.createElement('label');
const input = document.createElement('input');

// ...
document.querySelector('#container').prepend(div.appendChild(label));
```
This code uses native JavaScript to create and append the HTML structure.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of these two approaches:

* **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation.
* **JS**: The native JavaScript way of creating and manipulating HTML structures.

**Pros and Cons**

* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution due to optimized DOM manipulation, ease of use, and compatibility across browsers.
	+ Cons: Adds overhead due to the library's code size, potential performance impact on older browsers, and dependency on external resources.
* **JS**:
	+ Pros: Native performance, no dependencies, and full control over the HTML structure creation process.
	+ Cons: Requires more manual effort and expertise, may lead to slower execution times compared to jQuery.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark assumes a modern browser environment (Chrome 117) with decent hardware capabilities. Results might vary on older or lower-end devices.
* The use of `querySelector` and `prepend()` methods in the JS test case may introduce additional overhead due to DOM query optimizations.
* The benchmark does not account for other factors that could impact performance, such as CSS calculations, event handling, or asynchronous operations.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to creating HTML structures in JavaScript include:

* **vanilla-JS libraries**: Libraries like React, Angular, or Vue.js provide their own ways of rendering and manipulating the DOM.
* **DOM manipulation frameworks**: Frameworks like Polymer or Origami provide additional tools for building and optimizing web applications.
* **Custom solutions**: Developers can create custom solutions using native JavaScript, CSS, and HTML techniques to achieve optimal performance.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is designed to compare two specific approaches (jQuery vs JS) and may not be representative of the broader JavaScript ecosystem.

Related benchmarks:

Test 001 jQuery vs JS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs JS

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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