Benchmark: JQuery - CSS vs width (2)

HTML Preparation code:

<p id="image">IMAGE</p>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

.css({width:X})
$("#image").css({width:'400px'});
.width()
$("#image").width(400);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.css({width:X})
.width()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. Setting CSS styles using jQuery: `$("#image").css({width:'400px'});`
2. Setting width directly on an element using jQuery: `.width(400);`

**Options compared**

In this case, we have two options being compared:

* **Option 1:** Using the `css()` method to set CSS styles
* **Option 2:** Using the `.width()` method to set the width of an element

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

**Option 1 (CSS):**

Pros:

* Can be more flexible, as you can set multiple CSS properties at once.
* Can be used to apply styles in a more declarative way.

Cons:

* May require more CPU cycles to execute, as it involves parsing the CSS string and updating the DOM.

**Option 2 (.width()):**

Pros:

* Typically faster, as it only updates the element's width property without requiring additional overhead.
* Can be more efficient for simple width updates.

Cons:

* May not be suitable for more complex style updates or when you need to set multiple properties at once.

**Other considerations:**

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

* The specific use case and requirements of the application
* The target audience and performance characteristics of the users (e.g., mobile vs. desktop)
* The level of precision needed for the results

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to simplify the testing process. jQuery provides an easy-to-use API for manipulating HTML elements, making it easier to write concise and readable code.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two straightforward methods of setting CSS properties using jQuery.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for setting CSS styles or width could include:

* Using the `style` attribute directly on an element
* Utilizing a library like Styled Components or Emotion for more declarative and efficient styling solutions.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like CSS-in-JS with libraries like Tailwind CSS or CSS Modules.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs, pros, and cons, which would be worth exploring in more detailed benchmarking scenarios.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:72.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/72.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 72 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.css({width:X})	115194.9 Ops/sec
.width()	107867.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

JQuery - CSS vs width (2) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .css({width:X}) vs .width()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.css({width:X})

.width()

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):