Benchmark: Flow vs procedural selector

HTML Preparation code:

<body>
  <form id="my_form" class="my-form">
    <div class="sub-element"></div>
  </form>
</body>

Script Preparation code:

javascript:if(!window.jQuery||confirm('Overwrite\x20current\x20version '+ jQuery.fn.jquery +' with v3.5.1?\x20'))(function(d){s=d.createElement('script');s.src='https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.min.js';(d.head || d.documentElement).appendChild(s)})(document);

Tests:

Flow
jQuery('body') .addClass('i-body') .find('.my-form') .addClass('i-my-form') .find('.sub-element') .addClass('i-sub-element');
Procedural
jQuery('body').addClass('i-body'); jQuery('.my-form').addClass('i-my-form'); jQuery('.sub-element').addClass('i-sub-element');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Flow
Procedural

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the provided benchmark and its different approaches.

**Overview**

The MeasureThat.net website is used to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of various approaches to achieve the same result. The provided benchmark tests two ways to add CSS classes to elements using jQuery: Flow (also known as "Chaining") and Procedural (also known as "Method Call").

**What is being tested**

The benchmark measures the execution time of each approach, comparing how long it takes for the browser to execute each line of code.

* **Flow**: This approach uses chaining to select elements and add classes. The jQuery selector `jQuery('body')` selects the `body` element, and then each subsequent method call (`addClass`, `find`, etc.) is executed on that same object.
* **Procedural**: This approach uses method calls to select elements and add classes. Instead of chaining methods, each method is called separately, e.g., `jQuery('body').addClass('i-body')`.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two main approaches:

1. **Flow (Chaining)**: Selecting elements using jQuery's selector syntax (`jQuery('body')`) and then chaining method calls on that object.
2. **Procedural (Method Call)**: Using method call syntax to select elements and add classes, e.g., `jQuery('body').addClass('i-body')`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Flow (Chaining)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more readable and maintainable code
		- May be faster since fewer function calls are made
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to memory leaks if not used carefully
		- May be less efficient in certain cases due to the overhead of method call resolution
* **Procedural (Method Call)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Can be more explicit and predictable code
		- May be faster since fewer function calls are made
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to longer lines of code, making it harder to read and maintain
		- May not be as readable if not used carefully

**Other Considerations**

* **Browser support**: Both approaches should work in most modern browsers. However, some older browsers might have issues with the chaining syntax.
* **Performance overhead**: The benchmark highlights a potential performance difference between the two approaches. In general, method calls can be faster than chaining since they avoid the overhead of resolving the selector.

**Library and Purpose**

The provided JSON uses jQuery as the library. jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to achieve the same result using standard jQuery methods.

Related benchmarks:

Flow vs procedural selector (version: 0)

Flow vs procedural selector in jquery

Comparing performance of: Flow vs Procedural

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Flow

Procedural

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):