Benchmark: jQuery VS Cash New

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  jQuery.noConflict();  
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/cash/4.1.5/cash.min.js'></script>
<div id="foo">Hello World</div>

Tests:

Vanilla Get ID
var text = document.getElementById("foo");
Vanilla Get Text
var text = document.getElementById("foo").textContent;
Vanilla Get Html
var text = document.getElementById("foo").innerHTML;
Cash Get ID
var text = $("#foo");
Cash Get Text
var text = $("#foo").text();
Cash Get Html
var text = $("#foo").html();
jQuery Get ID
var text = jQuery("#foo");
jQuery Get Text
var text = jQuery("#foo").text();
jQuery Get Html
var text = jQuery("#foo").html();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla Get ID
Vanilla Get Text
Vanilla Get Html
Cash Get ID
Cash Get Text
Cash Get Html
jQuery Get ID
jQuery Get Text
jQuery Get Html

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.4 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla Get ID	7144372.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla Get Text	7232166.5 Ops/sec
Vanilla Get Html	4691698.0 Ops/sec
Cash Get ID	4682239.5 Ops/sec
Cash Get Text	4279840.5 Ops/sec
Cash Get Html	3194539.0 Ops/sec
jQuery Get ID	4699159.5 Ops/sec
jQuery Get Text	2786079.2 Ops/sec
jQuery Get Html	2585241.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents the script that will be executed by MeasureThat.net to compare the performance of three JavaScript libraries: jQuery, Cash, and vanilla JavaScript.

The `Script Preparation Code` section includes the HTML and JavaScript code required to prepare the environment for the benchmark. It loads the jQuery and Cash libraries, sets up a div element with the id "foo", and defines an empty script block.

**Test Cases**

Each test case represents a specific scenario where the performance of each library is measured. The test cases are:

1. **Vanilla Get ID**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the ID of the element using vanilla JavaScript.
2. **Vanilla Get Text**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the text content of the element using vanilla JavaScript.
3. **Vanilla Get Html**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the HTML content of the element using vanilla JavaScript.
4. **Cash Get ID**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the ID of the element using Cash.
5. **Cash Get Text**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the text content of the element using Cash.
6. **Cash Get Html**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the HTML content of the element using Cash.
7. **jQuery Get ID**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the ID of the element using jQuery.
8. **jQuery Get Text**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the text content of the element using jQuery.
9. **jQuery Get Html**: This test case measures the time it takes to retrieve the HTML content of the element using jQuery.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, no dependencies, simple syntax.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than libraries, requires manual DOM manipulation.
* **Cash**:
	+ Pros: Fast, lightweight, simple syntax. Cash is designed for high-performance DOM manipulation.
	+ Cons: Limited documentation and community support compared to jQuery.
* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: Large community, extensive documentation, versatile API.
	+ Cons: Larger size compared to vanilla JavaScript or Cash, can be slower than Cash.

**Observations from the Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show that:

* Cash performs consistently well across all test cases, indicating its lightweight and efficient design.
* jQuery performs reasonably well but has a noticeable overhead compared to Cash.
* Vanilla JavaScript is the slowest option, likely due to the manual DOM manipulation required in each test case.

Overall, the benchmark suggests that Cash is a good choice for high-performance DOM manipulation tasks, while jQuery is still a popular option with a large community and extensive documentation.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery VS Cash New (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla Get ID vs Vanilla Get Text vs Vanilla Get Html vs Cash Get ID vs Cash Get Text vs Cash Get Html vs jQuery Get ID vs jQuery Get Text vs jQuery Get Html

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla Get ID

Vanilla Get Text

Vanilla Get Html

Cash Get ID

Cash Get Text

Cash Get Html

jQuery Get ID

jQuery Get Text

jQuery Get Html

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):