Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test MerciApp getComputedStyle
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
getComputedStyle vs console.log()
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id="merciapp" style="color: red;"></div>
Tests:
getComputedStyle
let i = 5000; while (i--) { test(); } function test() { return window.getComputedStyle(document.getElementById('merciapp'), null); }
console.log()
let i = 5000; while (i--) { test(); } function test() { return console.log(document.getElementById('merciapp')); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
getComputedStyle
console.log()
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Understanding the Benchmark** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net. The goal of this benchmark is to measure the performance of two different approaches for accessing the `style` attribute of an HTML element. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **`getComputedStyle`**: This method returns the computed style of an element, including its CSS properties. 2. **`console.log()`**: This method simply logs a value to the console without performing any computations or accessing the `style` attribute of an element. **Pros and Cons** * **`getComputedStyle`**: + Pros: Returns the actual computed style of the element, which can be useful for CSS-related tasks. Can also be used to set the style of an element. + Cons: May have performance overhead due to its nature of computing styles on demand. * **`console.log()`**: + Pros: Fast and lightweight, as it doesn't involve any computations or accessing the `style` attribute. Suitable for logging purposes only. + Cons: Doesn't provide any useful information about the element's style; requires additional code to access the `style` attribute. **Library and Special JS Features** The benchmark uses no libraries, but it does utilize a special JavaScript feature called **"raw UAString"**, which is a way to capture the User Agent (UA) string of the browser being tested. This information can be useful for identifying the specific browser version and platform being used. **Other Considerations** When choosing between these two options, consider the following: * If you need to access or manipulate the `style` attribute of an element, use **`getComputedStyle`**. * If you only need to log a value to the console without performing any computations, use **`console.log()`**. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for accessing the `style` attribute include: * Using the `style` property directly on the element (e.g., `element.style.color`). * Using a library like jQuery or CSSOM for styling and manipulation. * Using a different method to access the computed style, such as using a CSS API or a styling library.
Related benchmarks:
jquery.css vs getComputedStyle
jquery3.4.1.css vs getComputedStyle
elem.ownerDocument.defaultView.getComputedStyle vs window.getComputedStyle
getComputedStyle vs clientWidth
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?