Benchmark: testcc - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div class="test">ciao</div>

Tests:

vanilla
document.querySelector('.test').classList.add('hallo');
jQuery
$(document).find('.test').addClass('hallo');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
jQuery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically designed to compare the performance of two approaches: vanilla JavaScript (without any external libraries) and jQuery. The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **vanilla**: Measures the time it takes to add a class to an HTML element using only vanilla JavaScript.
2. **jQuery**: Measures the time it takes to achieve the same task using jQuery.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two approaches:

* **Vanilla JavaScript**: Uses native JavaScript features and doesn't rely on any external libraries.
* **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a simplified way of manipulating the DOM (Document Object Model).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	+ Pros:
		- No dependencies or overhead from an external library.
		- More control over the execution environment.
		- Can be more efficient for small tasks.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual DOM manipulation, which can lead to errors and inconsistencies.
		- May not provide the same level of convenience as jQuery.
* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a simple and intuitive API for manipulating the DOM.
		- Reduces the amount of boilerplate code required.
		- Can improve performance by leveraging browser optimizations (e.g., caching).
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an extra dependency to the project, which can increase bundle size.
		- May introduce overhead due to library initialization and garbage collection.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a widely-used JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation. In this benchmark, we're using jQuery's `find()` method to select elements with the class "test" and then add the class "hallo". The official jQuery documentation describes `find()` as:

"A method used to find descendants of that are also descendants of the element itself."

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches, here are a few options:

* **Vanilla JavaScript alternatives**: Other libraries like Lodash (for utility functions) or React (for building user interfaces) might be useful depending on the specific use case.
* **jQuery alternatives**: Libraries like Backbone.js or Underscore.js provide similar functionality to jQuery.
* **Browser-specific optimizations**: Some browsers, like Chrome, have built-in optimizations for certain DOM operations. Developers can leverage these features by using browser-specific APIs (e.g., WebKit's `querySelectorAll()`).

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of vanilla JavaScript and jQuery in a simple task: adding a class to an HTML element. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which library or technique to use in their own projects.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.92 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanilla	1075458.9 Ops/sec
jQuery	227198.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testcc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs jQuery

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

jQuery

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):