Benchmark: JQuery version speed test jQuery 3.4.1 all

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.3/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1110 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.4/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1120 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.2.4/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq224 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.4.1.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq340 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

Tests:

Test jQuery 1.12.0
tests($jq1120);
Test jQuery 2.2.4
tests($jq224);
Test jQuery 3.3.1
tests($jq331);
Test jQuery 3.4.0
tests($jq340);
Test jQuery 1.11.0
tests($jq1110);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Test jQuery 1.12.0
Test jQuery 2.2.4
Test jQuery 3.3.1
Test jQuery 3.4.0
Test jQuery 1.11.0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its options for you.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different versions of jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library used for DOM manipulation and event handling.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of six different versions of jQuery:

1. jQuery 3.4.0
2. jQuery 3.3.1
3. jQuery 2.2.4
4. jQuery 1.12.0
5. jQuery 1.11.0
6. An older version (not specified), which is loaded from a Google CDN.

**Library and Purpose**

The library used in this benchmark is jQuery, which provides a way to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM) and handle events in web pages.

Each test case uses a different version of jQuery with the `$.noConflict(true)` method to prevent conflicts with other libraries. This method returns a new version of jQuery, replacing the original one.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is required for the tests. However, it's worth noting that the `$.noConflict(true)` method is used to avoid conflicts between different versions of jQuery and other libraries.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Using a specific version of jQuery**: Using a specific version can ensure consistency and reproducibility in test results.
2. **Loading multiple versions from Google CDNs**: Loading multiple versions from Google CDNs allows for easy comparison between different versions without modifying the original code.

**Cons of each approach:**

* Using a specific version:
	+ May require more maintenance to keep up with new releases
	+ Can be less flexible if needed to test other libraries or versions
* Loading multiple versions from Google CDNs:
	+ Can lead to conflicts between different versions and libraries
	+ Requires careful testing and comparison to ensure accurate results

**Other Alternatives**

There are several alternatives to this benchmark:

1. **Using a JavaScript testing framework**: Frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or Cypress provide more comprehensive testing capabilities than a simple benchmark.
2. **Testing individual functions or modules**: Focusing on specific parts of the codebase can help identify performance bottlenecks and improve overall optimization.
3. **Using profiling tools**: Profiling tools like Chrome DevTools or Node.js Inspector can provide detailed insights into performance issues without requiring complex benchmarks.

I hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Test jQuery 1.12.0	26561.1 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 2.2.4	32234.4 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 3.3.1	32938.6 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 3.4.0	37483.8 Ops/sec
Test jQuery 1.11.0	23699.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQuery version speed test jQuery 3.4.1 all (version: 0)

JQuery version speed test

Comparing performance of: Test jQuery 1.12.0 vs Test jQuery 2.2.4 vs Test jQuery 3.3.1 vs Test jQuery 3.4.0 vs Test jQuery 1.11.0

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Test jQuery 1.12.0

Test jQuery 2.2.4

Test jQuery 3.3.1

Test jQuery 3.4.0

Test jQuery 1.11.0

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):