Benchmark: style visibility vs. classList.contains

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="foo" class="test" style="visibility: initial"></div>

Tests:

className
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 1000; while (i--) { if (element.style.visibility !== "hidden") {} }
classList
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 1000; while (i--) { element.classList.contains("test"); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
className
classList

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using `style.visibility` and using `classList.contains()` for checking an element's visibility.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared in this benchmark:

1. **Using `style.visibility`**: This approach uses the `visibility` CSS property to set the visibility of an element. The `visibility` property is a shorthand that controls how an element is displayed, including whether it's visible or not.
2. **Using `classList.contains()`**: This approach uses the `classList.contains()` method to check if an element contains a specific class.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using `style.visibility`**:
	+ Pros: Simple and straightforward way to set visibility.
	+ Cons: May not be as efficient or accurate, especially for elements with complex styles or multiple visibility states.
* **Using `classList.contains()`**:
	+ Pros: More efficient and accurate than using `style.visibility`, as it only checks for the presence of a specific class without modifying the element's style.
	+ Cons: Requires the use of the `classList` property, which may not be supported by older browsers or has different behavior in certain cases.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that MeasureThat.net uses some internal libraries or frameworks to execute and compare the benchmarks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for checking an element's visibility, here are a few options:

1. **`display` property**: Similar to `style.visibility`, but uses the `display` property instead.
2. **`visibility` CSS media query**: Uses a CSS media query to set the visibility of an element based on certain conditions.
3. **Using a library like jQuery**: Although not explicitly mentioned, using a library like jQuery might provide alternative ways to check for element visibility.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own pros and cons, and some may be more suitable for specific use cases than others.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the performance of both approaches:

* Using `classList.contains()` outperforms using `style.visibility` with an execution rate of 25883.166015625 executions per second (FPS) compared to 1313847.125 FPS for the `visibility` approach.
These results suggest that using `classList.contains()` is more efficient for checking element visibility, especially when dealing with a large number of elements or complex styles.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:120.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/120.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 120 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
className	25883.2 Ops/sec
classList	1313847.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

style visibility vs. classList.contains (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: className vs classList

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

className

classList

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):