Benchmark: Old Jquery, Vanilla event listen

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>

<ul id="menu">
  <li>Item 1</li>
  <li>Item 2</li>
  <li>Item 3</li>
  <li>Item 4</li>
  <li>Item 5</li>
</ul>

Script Preparation code:


        Benchmark.prototype.setup = function() {

          
  var element = document.getElementById( 'menu' ).getElementsByTagName( 'li' )[2];

        
  };

Tests:

vanilla
document.getElementById( 'menu' ).addEventListener( 'click', function( event ) { if( event.target && event.target.nodeName === 'LI' ) { // Event triggered } }); element.click();
jq
jQuery( '#menu' ).on( 'click', 'li', function() { // Event triggered }); element.click();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
jq

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using vanilla JavaScript event listeners and using jQuery event listeners to attach an event handler to an element.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a `setup` function that is executed before each test. In this case, it retrieves an HTML element with the ID "menu" and its third child element (index 2). This step is likely used to ensure consistency in the test setup by retrieving the same element.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the jQuery library from a CDN. It also defines an unordered list (`<ul>`) with five list items (`<li>`), which will be used as the target for the event listeners.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Vanilla**: This test case uses vanilla JavaScript to attach an event listener to the element. Specifically, it adds a `click` event listener to the element using `addEventListener`, and then simulates a click event on the element using `element.click()`.
2. **jQuery**: This test case uses jQuery to attach an event listener to the element. It loads the jQuery library and uses its `on` method to add an event listener to the `#menu` element for clicks on any `<li>` elements.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, both tests use JavaScript libraries: jQuery (for the "jQuery" test case) and no additional library for the "Vanilla" test case. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or environments might require an explicit polyfill for vanilla event listeners to work correctly.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what is typically supported by modern browsers and JavaScript engines.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Vanilla Event Listeners (JavaScript)**:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, easy to implement, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to its inherent complexity compared to jQuery's event handling mechanisms.
* **jQuery Event Listeners**:
	+ Pros: Easier to use than vanilla event listeners, especially for DOM manipulation-heavy applications. Provides a more consistent API across browsers.
	+ Cons: Includes an additional library dependency, which can add size and latency overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If performance is critical, using vanilla event listeners might be a better choice due to its lightweight nature. However, if ease of use and consistency are more important, jQuery might be a better fit.
* **Code Size and Complexity**: jQuery provides an easier-to-use API, but it also adds size and complexity to your codebase.
* **Browser Support**: Both approaches should work across modern browsers; however, vanilla event listeners may require additional polyfills or workarounds in older browsers.

**Alternatives**

For comparison or alternatives, consider the following:

* **V8 (JavaScript Engine)**: This benchmark can be run against V8's event handling mechanisms to compare its performance with JavaScript engines like SpiderMonkey and others.
* **Babel**: Running this benchmark using Babel would allow you to test the performance of modern JavaScript transpilers in supporting vanilla event listeners.
* **Browser-specific benchmarks**: You could also create similar benchmarks for other browsers, such as Edge or Firefox, to compare their performance with jQuery's event handling mechanisms.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanilla	342.6 Ops/sec
jq	160.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Old Jquery, Vanilla event listen (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs jq

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

jq

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):