Benchmark: remove vs visibility:hidden on each element 22

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var container = document.getElementById('container');
ul = document.createElement('ul');
var html = [];
    for ( var i=0; i<2000; i += 1 ) {
  	html.push(`<li>${i}</li>`);
}
 ul.innerHTML = html.join('');
 container.appendChild(ul);

Tests:

removeChild
var element = ul.firstElementChild; while (element) { var element = ul.firstElementChild; element && ul.removeChild(element); }
visibility:hidden on each element
var elements = Array.prototype.slice.call(container); for (var i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) { elements[i].style.visibility = "hidden"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
removeChild
visibility:hidden on each element

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.5060.134 Safari/537.36 OPR/89.0.4447.83

Browser/OS: Opera 89 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
removeChild	5299055.0 Ops/sec
visibility:hidden on each element	1543541.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases for measuring JavaScript performance:

1. `removeChild`: Measures the performance of removing elements from an unordered list (`ul`) using a while loop.
2. `visibility:hidden on each element`: Measures the performance of setting the visibility of all elements in an unordered list (`ul`) to "hidden" using Array.prototype.slice and for loop.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is similar for both test cases:

```javascript
var container = document.getElementById('container');
var ul = document.createElement('ul');
var html = [];
for (var i=0; i<2000; i += 1 ) {
    html.push(`<li>${i}</li>`);
}
ul.innerHTML = html.join('');
container.appendChild(ul);
```

This code creates an unordered list with 2000 elements, appends it to a container element, and then sets the `innerHTML` property of the list.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is:

```html
<div id="container"></div>
```

This creates a simple HTML structure with a `div` element having an ID "container".

**Library Usage**

In both test cases, no libraries are explicitly used. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Array.prototype.slice.call(container)` in the second test case might be considered as using a library, but it's a part of the JavaScript standard library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is one special syntax feature being tested:

* The use of template literals (`<li>${i}</li>`) for generating HTML elements. Template literals are a relatively recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) and provide a more concise way to create strings.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

1. `removeChild`:
	* Pros: This approach is simple and straightforward, relying on the native DOM API for removing elements.
	* Cons: It might be slower than other approaches that use more optimized algorithms or techniques.
2. `visibility:hidden on each element`:
	* Pros: This approach uses a optimized algorithm by using Array.prototype.slice to create an array of elements and then setting their visibility to "hidden" in a loop.
	* Cons: It relies on the internal implementation details of Array.prototype.slice, which might change over time.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

1. Using `Array.prototype.forEach` instead of for loops.
2. Using `document.querySelectorAll` and then setting the visibility to "hidden" using CSS styles.
3. Implementing a custom algorithm that uses more optimized data structures or techniques, such as using a Set data structure to keep track of elements.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not provide significant performance improvements over the existing test cases and should be considered for further optimization efforts.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

remove vs visibility:hidden on each element 22 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: removeChild vs visibility:hidden on each element

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

removeChild

visibility:hidden on each element

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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