Benchmark: js puro vc jquery

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div><a id='' href='#' /></div>

Tests:

js puro
document.querySelector('div > a').setAttribute('href', 'http://enotas.com.br')
jquery
$('div > a').attr('href','http://enotas.com.br')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js puro
jquery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, hosted on MeasureThat.net, compares the performance of two JavaScript approaches: vanilla JavaScript (also known as pure JavaScript) and jQuery. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for a specific task: setting the `href` attribute of an anchor tag using either native JavaScript or jQuery's library.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This approach uses only native JavaScript functions to set the `href` attribute. It involves calling the `setAttribute()` method on the `document.querySelector()` result, which is an element (in this case, a `<a>` tag).
2. **jQuery**: This approach uses jQuery's library to set the `href` attribute. It involves using the `$` function to select the element and then calling the `.attr()` method on it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and doesn't introduce additional dependencies.
* Can be more efficient since it only uses native functions.
* Can be used in scenarios where jQuery is not available or desired.

Cons:

* May require more code and be less concise due to the need to manually select elements.
* Can be slower if the DOM is large, as it requires traversing the tree to find the element.

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Concise and easier to write, especially for complex selections.
* Handles the DOM in a more abstract way, making it less prone to errors.
* Often used in larger applications where performance is not critical.

Cons:

* Introduces an additional dependency (the jQuery library).
* Can be slower due to the overhead of the jQuery library and its internal mechanisms.
* May require more memory allocation for the jQuery object and its internal data structures.

**Library Used:**

In this benchmark, jQuery 3.3.1 is used as a dependency in both test cases. The `$` function is used to select elements, and `.attr()` is used to set attributes on those elements.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition that would require explanation beyond the basic concepts of vanilla JavaScript and jQuery.

**Other Considerations:**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Warm-up time**: Some code may take longer to execute due to initialization overhead. In this case, both test cases start with an empty HTML page, so warm-up times are likely minimal.
* **DOM manipulation**: The size and complexity of the DOM can affect performance. This benchmark focuses on a simple scenario with a single element, minimizing potential impacts.
* **Browser differences**: Browsers can exhibit different behavior due to various factors like caching, JIT compilation, or rendering engines. The benchmark is run on Chrome 74, which might not be representative for all browsers.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

* **Cypress**: A testing framework that automates web application testing with JavaScript and other languages.
* **Puppeteer**: A Node library developed by the Chrome team to control a headless Chrome or Chromium browser instance programmatically.
* **Benchmarking libraries like Benchmark.js or jsperf**: These libraries provide more advanced benchmarking features, including support for multiple browsers and test cases.

In summary, this benchmark compares two common JavaScript approaches: vanilla JavaScript and jQuery. Understanding the pros and cons of each approach can help you make informed decisions when choosing a technology stack for your projects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.157 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js puro	886020.4 Ops/sec
jquery	201041.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

js puro vc jquery (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: js puro vs jquery

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

js puro

jquery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):