Benchmark: asdfasdf comeon1

HTML Preparation code:

<div id='foo' class="lol"></div>

Tests:

a1
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 1000; var x = 0; while (i--) { if(element.classList.contains("lol")) { x++; } }
a2
var element = document.getElementById("foo"); var i = 1000; var x = 0 while (i--) { if(element.className == "lol") { x++; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a1
a2

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 what is tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

The test cases measure the performance of JavaScript code that retrieves an HTML element using `document.getElementById` and checks if it contains or has a specific class.

**Comparison Options:**

1. **Contains Method (`element.classList.contains("lol")`)** vs. **Equals Method (`element.className == "lol"`)
2. **Using `contains` method**: The test case uses the `classList.contains()` method to check if the element has the class `"lol"`. This is a modern and more efficient approach, as it only checks for presence of the class, not whether it's present in the first position.
3. **Using `equals` method (`element.className == "lol"`)**: The test case uses the `className` property to compare the element's class with `"lol"`. This is an older and less efficient approach, as it checks for equality between two strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Contains Method (`classList.contains()`)**:
	* Pros: More modern, efficient, and reliable.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers that don't support `classList`.
2. **Equals Method (`className ==`)**:
	* Pros: Works in most browsers, but can be slower due to string comparison.
	* Cons: Less efficient, less reliable, and more prone to errors.

**Library:**
None explicitly mentioned in the provided code, but it's worth noting that `classList.contains()` is a part of the HTML5 API, which is supported by modern browsers.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The test case uses the arrow function (`=>`) for defining the while loop condition and incrementing variable. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and is widely supported in modern browsers.

**Other Considerations:**

* The test cases are designed to measure performance, so it's essential to consider factors like browser version, device platform, operating system, and hardware configuration.
* The `RawUAString` field provides the raw user agent string for each browser run, which can be useful for identifying specific browsers or versions.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you wanted to use different approaches in your benchmarking test cases, here are some alternatives:

1. Instead of using `classList.contains()`, you could use the `indexOf()` method or a regular expression.
2. To compare class names, you could use the `split()` method or a custom function for class name manipulation.

For example, to replace the original test case with one using `indexOf()`:
```javascript
while (i--) {
  if (element.className.indexOf("lol") != -1) {
    x++;
  }
}
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives might affect performance and accuracy of your benchmarking results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
a1	22399.4 Ops/sec
a2	20343.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

asdfasdf comeon1 (version: 0)

asdf

Comparing performance of: a1 vs a2

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a1

a2

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):