Benchmark: jQuery parsing html string

Tests:

Self-closing
$('<input/>');
html5-style
$('<input>');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Self-closing
html5-style

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**What is being tested:**
The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to parse HTML strings using jQuery.

1. **Self-closing tags**: The first approach uses self-closing tags (`<input/>`) to create input fields. Self-closing tags are a shorthand way of writing HTML tags that do not have a closing tag.
2. **HTML5-style tags**: The second approach uses regular HTML5-style tags with a closing tag (`<input>`) to create input fields.

**Options compared:**
The benchmark compares the performance of two options:

1. Self-closing tags
2. HTML5-style tags

**Pros/Cons:**

* **Self-closing tags**:
	+ Pros: They can potentially reduce the number of DOM nodes created, which might lead to better performance.
	+ Cons: They may not be supported by older browsers or those with limited JavaScript capabilities.
* **HTML5-style tags**:
	+ Pros: They are widely supported across modern browsers and provide a familiar syntax for developers.
	+ Cons: They may increase the number of DOM nodes created, which could potentially lead to performance issues.

**Library and purpose:**
In this benchmark, jQuery is used as the library. The primary purpose of jQuery is to simplify DOM manipulation and provide an efficient way to interact with HTML documents in JavaScript applications.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
The benchmark uses a special syntax for creating input fields using jQuery: `$.('<input/>');` and `$.('<input>');`. This syntax allows developers to create elements using jQuery's string template engine, which can improve performance by avoiding the need to parse the HTML string manually.

**Other considerations:**

* **Browsers:** The benchmark is run on Chrome 56 on a Fedora Linux system.
* **Device platform and operating system:** The test is executed on an "Other" device platform with a Fedora operating system. This could potentially affect performance, as some browsers may optimize for certain platforms or operating systems.

**Alternatives:**
If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider the following alternatives:

1. Compare parsing approaches using other libraries, such as VanillaJS (JavaScript without jQuery) or other popular JavaScript frameworks like React or Angular.
2. Explore performance differences between self-closing tags and HTML5-style tags in browsers with specific versions or configurations.
3. Test different rendering engines (e.g., Blink vs. Gecko) to understand their impact on parsing performance.
4. Compare the performance of parsing approaches using different types of data structures, such as arrays or DOM trees.

Keep in mind that the specifics of your benchmark will depend on the goals and scope you're aiming for.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Fedora; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 56 on Fedora

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Self-closing	202850.1 Ops/sec
html5-style	204396.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jQuery parsing html string (version: 0)

Self-closing tags vs regular html5-style tags

Comparing performance of: Self-closing vs html5-style

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Self-closing

html5-style

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):