Benchmark: Change text of list items: jQuery vs. vanilla JS

HTML Preparation code:

    <ul id="theList">
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
      <li>Item</li>    
    </ul>

Tests:

jQuery
var els = $('#theList li'); els.each(function() { $(this).text('Changed'); });
Vanilla JS
var els = document.querySelectorAll('#theList li'); Array.prototype.slice.call(els).forEach(function(el) { el.textContent = 'Changed'; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The MeasureThat.net benchmark compares the performance of two approaches for changing the text of list items: jQuery and vanilla JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery**: Uses the jQuery library to select and manipulate DOM elements.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Uses native JavaScript methods (e.g., `document.querySelectorAll()`, `Array.prototype.forEach()`) without any additional libraries.

**Pros and Cons**

### jQuery

Pros:

* Familiarity: Many developers are already comfortable with jQuery, which can lead to faster development times.
* Convenience: jQuery provides a simple and concise way to select and manipulate DOM elements.

Cons:

* Performance overhead: jQuery adds an extra layer of abstraction, which can introduce performance overhead compared to native JavaScript methods.
* Additional library dependency: jQuery needs to be included in the project, which may not be desirable for small projects or those with limited dependencies.

### Vanilla JavaScript

Pros:

* Performance optimization: Native JavaScript methods are often faster and more efficient than their jQuery counterparts.
* No additional library dependency: Only standard JavaScript functions are required, making it suitable for smaller projects or those with limited dependencies.

Cons:

* Steeper learning curve: Developers need to be familiar with native JavaScript methods, which can take time to learn.
* More verbose code: Vanilla JavaScript code may require more lines of code compared to jQuery.

**Library and Syntax Used**

The benchmark uses the following libraries and syntax features:

* **jQuery**: The full version of jQuery 1.12.4 is included in the HTML file.
	+ Purpose: To provide a convenient way to select and manipulate DOM elements.
* **Vanilla JavaScript**: Uses standard JavaScript methods (e.g., `document.querySelectorAll()`, `Array.prototype.forEach()`) without any additional libraries.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark, as both approaches rely on standard JavaScript methods. However, the use of jQuery introduces some additional complexity due to its own syntax and behavior.

**Alternatives**

For changing the text of list items, alternative approaches could be:

* Using a framework like React or Angular, which provide their own set of tools and libraries for DOM manipulation.
* Utilizing other libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which offer utility functions for working with arrays and DOM elements.
* Implementing custom solutions using native JavaScript methods, potentially resulting in faster performance but requiring more development effort.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific project requirements, team expertise, and personal preferences.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	5456.3 Ops/sec
Vanilla JS	73413.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Change text of list items: jQuery vs. vanilla JS (version: 0)

Get the items from a list and change the text of each of them.

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs Vanilla JS

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

Vanilla JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):