function template(html) {
var t = document.createElement('template');
t.innerHTML = html;
return t.content.firstChild;
}
function div(html) {
var t = document.createElement('div');
t.innerHTML = html;
return t.firstChild;
}
var html = '<tr><td class="col-md-1"></td><td class="col-md-4"><a></a></td><td class="col-md-1"><a><span class="glyphicon glyphicon-remove" aria-hidden="true" /></a></td><td class="col-md-6" /></tr>';
template(html).cloneNode(true);
div(html).cloneNode(true);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Template | |
Div |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Template | 47166.5 Ops/sec |
Div | 60763.9 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using a template
element versus a div
element to clone and render HTML content.
Options Compared
There are two options compared:
<template>
) to render and clone HTML content.div
element to render and clone HTML content.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
template
elements. Additionally, some modern browsers may have performance issues when using templates due to their complex parsing logic.Library Usage
In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. However, it's worth noting that the template
approach relies on the HTML5 specification of template elements, which are supported by modern browsers.
Special JS Features or Syntax
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript functions like cloneNode()
and basic DOM manipulation.
Other Alternatives
If you're looking for alternative approaches to cloning and rendering HTML content, some options include:
Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and may not be suitable for every use case.