Benchmark: Vanilla JS VS JQuery DOM perfomance(no var)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="nhngodo">Hi! NHNgodo!</div>

Tests:

Vanilla JS
document.getElementById("nhngodo").innerText = "Hi! NHNgodo!";
Jquery
$("#nhngodo").text("Hi! NHNgodo!");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
Jquery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark compares the performance of two ways to modify the text content within a HTML element: using plain JavaScript and using the jQuery library.

**Options Compared:**

* **Vanilla JS:** This option directly manipulates the DOM (Document Object Model) using JavaScript's built-in methods like `document.getElementById` and setting the `innerText` property. 
* **jQuery:** This option uses the popular jQuery library, which provides a simplified syntax for interacting with the DOM. Here, it uses the `$("#nhngodo")` selector to target the element and the `.text()` method to change its content.

**Pros and Cons:**

| Approach         | Pros                                    | Cons                             |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Vanilla JS      |  - More control over individual DOM operations<br>- Potentially faster for simple tasks | - Can be more verbose and complex<br>- Requires deeper understanding of the DOM |
| jQuery          | - Concise and readable syntax              | - Adds an external library dependency<br>- Might introduce overhead compared to vanilla JS |

**Other Considerations:**

* **Library Dependency:** Using jQuery adds a dependency on an external library. While jQuery is widely used, including it can increase page load time and potentially conflict with other libraries.
* **Performance Trade-Offs:** In this specific case, jQuery's performance is significantly slower than vanilla JS. However, for more complex DOM manipulations or interactions, jQuery might offer optimizations that outweigh the overhead.

**Alternatives:**

There are other JavaScript libraries and frameworks besides jQuery that can be used to manipulate the DOM, such as:

* **React:** A popular library for building user interfaces with a component-based architecture.
* **Angular:**  A comprehensive framework for building complex web applications.
* **Vue.js:** A progressive framework known for its ease of use and flexibility.

Each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice depends on the specific requirements of the project.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.85 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	1068868.0 Ops/sec
Jquery	502938.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla JS VS JQuery DOM perfomance(no var) (version: 0)

Vanilla JS VS JQuery DOM perfomance

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Jquery

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Jquery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated 27 days ago):