Benchmark: AddEventListener

Tests:

addEvenListener
for (i=0; i<10000;i++) { document.addEventListener('click', ()=>{}) }
.on
for (i=0; i<10000;i++) { $('document').on('click', function(){})}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
addEvenListener
.on

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches for attaching an event listener to the `document` object: `addEventListener()` and `.on()` (also known as jQuery's "on" method). The test case creates a loop that runs 10,000 times, adding an event listener with no callback function.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`addEventListener()`**: This is the native JavaScript method for attaching an event listener to an element or document. It takes three arguments: the type of event, the target element, and a callback function.
2. **`.on()` (jQuery's "on" method)**: This is a part of the jQuery library, which is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. The `.on()` method also takes three arguments: the type of event, the selector or target element, and a callback function.

**Pros and Cons**

**`addEventListener()`**:

Pros:

* Native JavaScript method, widely supported by modern browsers.
* More efficient than using jQuery's `.on()` method.
* Allows for more fine-grained control over event listeners.

Cons:

* May require additional setup, such as creating a new function object to serve as the callback.

**`.on()` (jQuery's "on" method)**:

Pros:

* Simple and intuitive syntax.
* Works with jQuery's event handling system.
* Can be useful for chaining multiple events together.

Cons:

* Not native JavaScript, which may lead to compatibility issues with some browsers or libraries.
* Less efficient than using `addEventListener()`.
* May pollute the global namespace if not used carefully.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Browser support**: If you need to support older browsers that don't have native `addEventListener()` support, `.on()` might be a safer choice.
* **Performance**: If performance is critical, using `addEventListener()` will likely be faster than using `.on()`.
* **Library usage**: If you're already using jQuery, `.on()` might be a more convenient choice. Otherwise, `addEventListener()` is generally the better option.

**Library usage**

The test case uses jQuery's `.on()` method, which suggests that the author wants to compare its performance with native JavaScript's `addEventListener()` method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript and jQuery methods.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark!

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/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 52 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
addEvenListener	0.6 Ops/sec
.on	26.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

AddEventListener (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: addEvenListener vs .on

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

addEvenListener

.on

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):