Benchmark: jquery closed vs regular tag

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.4.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

regular
$('<div>')
closed
$('<div/>')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regular
closed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to creating HTML elements using jQuery: one with a closing slash (`$('<div/>')`) and the other without it (`$('<div>')`). The goal is to determine which approach results in better performance.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library used for DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX interactions. In this benchmark, jQuery is used to create HTML elements using its `$(selector)` syntax. The `$` symbol is an alias for the `document.createElement()` function, which creates a new element with the specified tag name.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Regular Tag**: Using the `'<div>'` syntax without the closing slash.
2. **Closed Tag**: Using the `'<div/>'` syntax with the closing slash.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Regular Tag (`$('<div>')`)**
	* Pros:
		+ May be more readable and easier to write, as it follows standard HTML tag syntax.
		+ Could potentially lead to faster parsing and execution times in browsers that optimize for this pattern.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be compatible with older browsers that expect the closing slash in tags (e.g., Internet Explorer 8).
2. **Closed Tag (`$('<div/>')`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Compatible with older browsers, as it uses a standard HTML tag syntax with the closing slash.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less readable and more error-prone, especially for developers unfamiliar with this syntax.
		+ Could potentially lead to slower parsing and execution times in some browsers.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation. The benchmark is focused solely on comparing the performance of two different jQuery tag creation approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

In theory, other libraries or frameworks could be used to create HTML elements in a similar way. Some alternatives might include:

* Vanilla JavaScript: Using `document.createElement()` directly without a library.
* Other templating engines or libraries that provide similar functionality (e.g., Handlebars, Mustache).

However, these alternatives would likely change the scope and focus of the benchmark, as they would introduce additional factors to consider (e.g., template parsing, syntax complexity).

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.130 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.15.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regular	777220.1 Ops/sec
closed	773270.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

jquery closed vs regular tag (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regular vs closed

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

regular

closed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):