Benchmark: Vanilla vs jQuery 2

HTML Preparation code:

<div class="test"></div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

Vanilla addClass
document.querySelector(".test").classList.add("next-class");
Jquery addClass
$(document).find(".test").addClass("next-class");
Vanilla find element
document.querySelector(".test");
jQuery
$(document).find(".test");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla addClass
Jquery addClass
Vanilla find element
jQuery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 23 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript approaches: Vanilla (native JavaScript) and jQuery 2. The tests are designed to measure the execution time and frequency of specific actions, such as adding a class to an element or finding an element by its selector.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes a reference to jQuery 3.3.1, which is loaded from a CDN (Content Delivery Network). This library provides additional functionality on top of native JavaScript. In contrast, the Vanilla test does not include any external libraries.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four individual test cases:

1. **Vanilla addClass**: This test measures the execution time and frequency of adding a class to an element using native JavaScript.
2. **jQuery addClass**: This test measures the execution time and frequency of adding a class to an element using jQuery 2.
3. **Vanilla find element**: This test measures the execution time and frequency of finding an element by its selector using native JavaScript.
4. **jQuery**: This test measures the execution time and frequency of finding an element by its selector using jQuery 2.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and Ajax interactions. In this benchmark, jQuery 2 is used to provide additional functionality on top of native JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of `$` (the dollar sign) as a function prefix for jQuery functions is not commonly used in modern JavaScript development. The `$(document).find()` syntax is also not typically used; instead, `document.querySelector()` or `document.querySelectorAll()` would be more common.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Vanilla (native JavaScript)**: This approach uses native JavaScript functions and does not rely on any external libraries.
2. **jQuery 2**: This approach uses jQuery's additional functionality to simplify DOM manipulation and event handling.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Vanilla (native JavaScript)**
	+ Pros:
		- No dependencies or overhead from an external library.
		- Can be more lightweight and efficient.
		- Provides fine-grained control over DOM manipulation.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more manual effort and expertise.
		- May not provide the same level of abstraction and convenience as jQuery.
* **jQuery 2**
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a higher-level abstraction for common DOM manipulation tasks.
		- Can simplify code and reduce errors.
		- Often used in larger projects or with more complex layouts.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds overhead from the external library.
		- May not be suitable for very lightweight or performance-critical applications.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to JavaScript DOM manipulation include:

* **React**: A popular JavaScript library for building user interfaces and managing state changes.
* **Angular**: Another popular JavaScript framework for building complex web applications.
* **Preact**: A lightweight, fast, and flexible alternative to React and Angular.
* **Vanilla-HTML-CSS**: A minimalist approach that focuses on writing efficient, well-structured HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches: Vanilla (native JavaScript) and jQuery 2. The tests measure execution time and frequency for specific actions like adding a class or finding an element by its selector. Each approach has pros and cons, and depending on the project requirements and expertise, one approach may be more suitable than the other.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.111 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla addClass	673588.1 Ops/sec
Jquery addClass	137809.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla find element	1738144.1 Ops/sec
jQuery	219683.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla vs jQuery 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla addClass vs Jquery addClass vs Vanilla find element vs jQuery

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla addClass

Jquery addClass

Vanilla find element

jQuery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 23 days ago):