Benchmark: Jquery 1.10.4 vs 3.5.1

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1102 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq351 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

AخA
 
<script src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1102 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq351 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

 
function tests($) {    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({      "background-color": "red"    }).parent().css({      "border": "1px solid blue"    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({      "background-color": "green"    })).end().end().remove();  console.log('tests' + $);}

Tests:

$jq1102
tests($jq1102);
tests($jq1102);
$jq351
tests($jq351)
tests($jq351)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
$jq1102
$jq351

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; LGL455DL) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.92 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 77 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
$jq1102	2077.9 Ops/sec
$jq351	2902.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two versions of jQuery: 1.10.4 and 3.5.1. The script preparation code uses these two versions to execute a series of DOM manipulation operations on an HTML page.

Script Preparation Code

The script preparation code defines a function tests($) { ... } that takes a jQuery object $. This function performs the following operations:

Finds the closest ul element for the 3rd menu item ($( ".menu-item" ).eq(2).closest("ul")) and sets its background color to red.
Sets the border of the parent element to blue.
Appends a new paragraph element with text "Text." and green background color.
Removes all elements from the document.

Html Preparation Code

The HTML preparation code includes two versions of jQuery: 1.10.2 and 3.5.1, both loaded in separate script tags using the $.noConflict(true) method to avoid conflicts between the two libraries. The HTML page also contains a simple menu structure with four menu items.

Individual Test Cases

The benchmark defines two individual test cases:

tests($jq1102);: Tests jQuery 1.10.4.
tests($jq351);: Tests jQuery 3.5.1.

These test cases execute the script preparation code using each of the two jQuery versions.

Library: $

The $ symbol represents the jQuery library, which is used to manipulate the DOM and execute the script preparation code.

Special JS Feature/Syntax

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that using $.noConflict(true) to load multiple versions of jQuery can be considered an advanced technique.

Pros and Cons of Different Approaches

Comparing two versions of jQuery involves several considerations:

Using a newer version (3.5.1): Pros:
- May have improved performance, security, and features.
- Could take advantage of newer browser capabilities.
Cons:
- May break compatibility with older browsers or legacy code.
- Might require additional effort to refactor existing code.
Using an older version (1.10.4): Pros:
- May be compatible with older browsers or legacy code.
- Could reduce the risk of introducing new security vulnerabilities.
Cons:
- May have slower performance and fewer features compared to newer versions.
- Might not take advantage of newer browser capabilities.

Other Considerations

When comparing JavaScript libraries, other considerations include:

Compatibility: Ensure that both versions are compatible with the target browsers and platforms.
Performance: Benchmarking is essential to determine which version performs better under specific conditions.
Security: Newer versions might introduce new security vulnerabilities or features. Thoroughly review the code before using a newer version.
Refactoring: Depending on the changes introduced by a newer version, refactoring existing code may be necessary to maintain compatibility and performance.

Alternatives

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript libraries include:

Using online tools, such as jsPerf or Benchmark.js.
Creating custom benchmarking scripts using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha.
Integrating with continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines to automate testing and benchmarking.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a function `tests($) { ... }` that takes a jQuery object `$`. This function performs the following operations:

1. Finds the closest `ul` element for the 3rd menu item (`$( ".menu-item" ).eq(2).closest("ul")`) and sets its background color to red.
2. Sets the border of the parent element to blue.
3. Appends a new paragraph element with text "Text." and green background color.
4. Removes all elements from the document.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes two versions of jQuery: 1.10.2 and 3.5.1, both loaded in separate script tags using the `$.noConflict(true)` method to avoid conflicts between the two libraries. The HTML page also contains a simple menu structure with four menu items.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark defines two individual test cases:

1. `tests($jq1102);`: Tests jQuery 1.10.4.
2. `tests($jq351);`: Tests jQuery 3.5.1.

These test cases execute the script preparation code using each of the two jQuery versions.

**Library: `$`**

The `$` symbol represents the jQuery library, which is used to manipulate the DOM and execute the script preparation code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that using `$.noConflict(true)` to load multiple versions of jQuery can be considered an advanced technique.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Comparing two versions of jQuery involves several considerations:

* **Using a newer version (3.5.1)**: Pros:
	+ May have improved performance, security, and features.
	+ Could take advantage of newer browser capabilities.
*   Cons:
    *   May break compatibility with older browsers or legacy code.
    *   Might require additional effort to refactor existing code.
*   **Using an older version (1.10.4)**: Pros:
    *   May be compatible with older browsers or legacy code.
    *   Could reduce the risk of introducing new security vulnerabilities.
*   Cons:
    + May have slower performance and fewer features compared to newer versions.
    + Might not take advantage of newer browser capabilities.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing JavaScript libraries, other considerations include:

* **Compatibility**: Ensure that both versions are compatible with the target browsers and platforms.
* **Performance**: Benchmarking is essential to determine which version performs better under specific conditions.
* **Security**: Newer versions might introduce new security vulnerabilities or features. Thoroughly review the code before using a newer version.
* **Refactoring**: Depending on the changes introduced by a newer version, refactoring existing code may be necessary to maintain compatibility and performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript libraries include:

*   Using online tools, such as jsPerf or Benchmark.js.
*   Creating custom benchmarking scripts using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha.
*   Integrating with continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines to automate testing and benchmarking.

Related benchmarks:

Jquery 1.10.4 vs 3.5.1 (version: 0)

Comparing Jquery 3.5.1 to 1.10.4

Comparing performance of: $jq1102 vs $jq351

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

$jq1102

$jq351

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):