Benchmark: JQUERY v3.7.1 vs v4.0.0 AND v3.7.1-slim vs v4.0.0-slim

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.1.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq371 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.1.slim.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq371_slim = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-4.0.0-beta.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq400 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-4.0.0-beta.slim.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq400_slim = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">
    </li>
    <li class="menu-item">
    </li>
    <li class="menu-item">
    </li>
    <li class="menu-item">
    </li>
    <li class="menu-item">
    </li>
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $('#menu').css({
      'backgroud': 'red'
    });
    $('.menu-item').eq(2).hasClass('foo');
  
	console.log($('.menu-item').length);
}

Tests:

v3.7.1
tests($jq371);
v3.7.1-slim
tests($jq371_slim);
v4.0.0
tests($jq400);
v4.0.0-slim
tests($jq400_slim);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
v3.7.1
v3.7.1-slim
v4.0.0
v4.0.0-slim

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 JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares the performance of two versions of jQuery (3.7.1 and 4.0.0) with their slim counterparts. The test consists of four individual test cases, each executing a simple script preparation code.

**Test Cases**

Each test case is defined by a "Benchmark Definition" field, which specifies the execution order of the script preparation code for that particular version of jQuery. In other words, it defines how to load and prepare the different versions of jQuery before running the benchmark.

Here are the four test cases:

1. `tests($jq371)`: Executes the original 3.7.1 version of jQuery.
2. `tests($jq371_slim)`: Executes the slimmed-down 3.7.1 version of jQuery.
3. `tests($jq400)`: Executes the original 4.0.0 version of jQuery.
4. `tests($jq400_slim)`: Executes the slimmed-down 4.0.0 version of jQuery.

**Library and Purpose**

The libraries used in this benchmark are:

* jQuery: A popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation, event handling, and other tasks.
* `$`: The symbol used to access the jQuery object, which is a shorthand for `jQuery()`. In this benchmark, `$` is used as a variable to store the loaded jQuery instances.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require specific configuration or execution order. It simply loads and executes different versions of jQuery in sequence.

**Options Compared**

The main options being compared are:

* **Full vs Slim**: The original (full) version of jQuery is loaded and executed alongside its slimmed-down counterpart.
* **Version 3.x vs Version 4.x**: Two different versions of jQuery (3.7.1 and 4.0.0) are compared.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons associated with each option:

* **Full vs Slim**:
	+ Pros: More accurate results, as the slim version is not optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: Larger footprint, potentially slower execution times due to additional overhead.
* **Version 3.x vs Version 4.x**:
	+ Pros: Better understanding of performance differences between versions.
	+ Cons: Limited by the specific versions being compared.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative benchmarking options or want to explore different approaches, here are a few suggestions:

1. **Benchpress**: A JavaScript benchmarking library that allows you to write and run custom benchmarks.
2. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for Node.js and browser-side applications.
3. **Jest**: A testing framework that also provides built-in support for benchmarking and performance optimization.

These alternatives offer more flexibility and control over the benchmarking process, allowing you to tailor your tests to specific use cases or experiment with different optimization techniques.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
v3.7.1	54728.6 Ops/sec
v3.7.1-slim	54741.7 Ops/sec
v4.0.0	55397.2 Ops/sec
v4.0.0-slim	52644.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQUERY v3.7.1 vs v4.0.0 AND v3.7.1-slim vs v4.0.0-slim (version: 0)

Pre benchmark BETA RELEASE v4.0.0

Comparing performance of: v3.7.1 vs v3.7.1-slim vs v4.0.0 vs v4.0.0-slim

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

v3.7.1

v3.7.1-slim

v4.0.0

v4.0.0-slim

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):