Benchmark: MarkTest1 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

<form>
  <input type="text">Hi</input>
  <textarea>This is text area</textarea>
  <span id="testid"></span>
</form>

Script Preparation code:

var elem = document.getElementById("testid");

Tests:

JQ sibinglings
var txt = $(elem).siblings("textarea").val();
Vanilla
for (sibling = elem.parentNode.firstChild; sibling; sibling = sibling.nextSibling) { if (sibling.nodeName=="TEXTAREA") { var txt = sibling.value; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ sibinglings
Vanilla

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 benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition represents a JavaScript function that extracts the value from a textarea element using jQuery's `siblings()` method or a vanilla JavaScript loop. The functions are identical, except for the approach used to access the sibling element.

```javascript
// Benchmark 1: Using jQuery's siblings() method
var txt = $(elem).siblings("textarea").val();

// Benchmark 2: Vanilla JavaScript loop
for (sibling = elem.parentNode.firstChild; sibling; sibling = sibling.nextSibling) {
    if (sibling.nodeName == "TEXTAREA") {
        var txt = sibling.value;
    }
}
```

**Options Compared:**

1. **jQuery's `siblings()` method**: This approach uses the jQuery library to select the textarea element and then access its value.
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to write and read, especially for developers familiar with jQuery.
		+ Provides a convenient way to select elements based on their type or attributes.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the jQuery library to be included in the project, which may add extra overhead.
		+ May not perform as well as vanilla JavaScript approaches due to the overhead of jQuery's DOM manipulation.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript loop**: This approach uses a traditional JavaScript `for` loop to iterate through the parent element's child nodes and find the textarea element.
	* Pros:
		+ No additional library dependencies, making it suitable for projects that require minimal external libraries.
		+ Can be optimized further with techniques like caching and memoization.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and harder to read than jQuery's `siblings()` method.
		+ May not provide the same level of convenience as jQuery.

**Library:**
The library used in this benchmark is jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation, event handling, and other tasks. In this case, jQuery's `siblings()` method is used to select the textarea element.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations:**

1. **Optimization**: The benchmark can be optimized further by using caching and memoization techniques to reduce the number of times the `siblings()` method is called.
2. **Browser Support**: The benchmark is likely designed to work on modern browsers that support both jQuery and vanilla JavaScript approaches.

**Alternatives:**
Other alternatives for accessing textarea elements in vanilla JavaScript include:

1. Using the `document.querySelector()` method with a CSS selector (e.g., `document.querySelector("textarea")`).
2. Using a library like Vanilla.js or Lodash, which provide utility functions for DOM manipulation and element selection.
3. Implementing custom logic to traverse the DOM tree and find the textarea element.

These alternatives may offer better performance, easier-to-read code, or additional features depending on the specific use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.107 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQ sibinglings	372414.6 Ops/sec
Vanilla	186956.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

MarkTest1 (version: 0)

NA

Comparing performance of: JQ sibinglings vs Vanilla

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQ sibinglings

Vanilla

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):