Overview

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition json represents a comparison between jQuery (JQuery) and vanilla JavaScript for a specific use case: updating the text content of multiple HTML elements.

Script Preparation Code

The script preparation code includes a reference to jQuery 3.6.1, which is loaded via a CDN link. This ensures that all tests run with the same version of jQuery. The code also creates four empty HTML div elements, which will be used as targets for the benchmarking process.

Individual Test Cases

There are three individual test cases:

JQ

• Benchmark Definition: $("div").each(function(i){\r\n $(this).text("a");\r\n});
• Test Name: "JQ" This test case uses jQuery's .each() method to iterate over the elements with the class div and updates their text content to "a".

Vanilla

• Benchmark Definition: [...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{\r\n\te.innerText = "a";\r\n});
• Test Name: "Vanilla" This test case uses vanilla JavaScript's Array.prototype.map() method to create a new array of elements with the class div, updates their text content to "a" using the innerText property.

Vanilla No Map

• Benchmark Definition: let divs = [...document.querySelectorAll("div")];\r\nfor(let i=0;i<divs.length;i++){\r\n\tdivs[i].innerText = "a";\r\n}
• Test Name: "Vanilla No Map" This test case is similar to the previous one, but instead of using map(), it uses a traditional for loop to iterate over the elements and update their text content.

Options Compared

The three test cases compare the following options:

1. jQuery (JQuery) vs vanilla JavaScript.
2. Using .each() versus using a traditional for loop.
3. Using map() versus not using map().

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

• JQuery: Pros:
  • Provides a convenient way to iterate over elements with a class selector.
  • Can be more efficient for large datasets, as it uses the browser's CSS engine to optimize the lookup process. Cons:
  • Adds an additional library dependency, which may not be desirable for all use cases.
  • May introduce additional overhead due to the jQuery library itself.
• Vanilla JavaScript (with .map()): Pros:
  • Does not require any additional libraries or dependencies.
  • Can be more efficient than using .each() for large datasets, as it uses a more optimized algorithm for creating arrays. Cons:
  • May require more manual effort to set up and maintain the benchmarking process.
  • Can be less readable or maintainable than using jQuery's .each() method.
• Vanilla JavaScript (with traditional for loop): Pros:
  • Is often considered the most readable and maintainable option, as it uses a familiar and well-understood syntax. Cons:
  • May not be as efficient as using map() for large datasets.

Library Used

In this benchmark, jQuery is used to provide a convenient way to iterate over elements with a class selector. The library itself is loaded via a CDN link.

Special JS Feature or Syntax

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that are not commonly used in vanilla JavaScript.

Other Alternatives

If you were to create your own benchmarking tool, you might consider using alternative libraries or approaches, such as:

• Using a different library for DOM manipulation, such as React or Angular.
• Implementing your own algorithm for iterating over elements and updating their text content.
• Using a different testing framework or benchmarking library.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements. MeasureThat.net provides a convenient and easy-to-use interface for comparing different approaches, but you may need to adapt or modify the code to suit your own needs.