Benchmark: combo-vs-react - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="container"></div>

<!--#scripts-->

<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/combojs/combo-js/0.1.0/dist/combo.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/15.6.1/react.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/15.6.1/react-dom.min.js"></script>

Tests:

React
class Hello extends React.Component { render() { return React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${this.props.name}`); } } ReactDOM.render( React.createElement(Hello, {name: 'World'}, null), document.getElementById('container') );
Combo
var Test = new class extends Combo.Component { render(props) { return `<div>Hello ${props.name}</div>`; } }("container"); Combo.render(Test, {name: "world"});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
React
Combo

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
React	55027.2 Ops/sec
Combo	132867.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark information and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two JavaScript libraries: ComboJS (formerly known as React) and a custom implementation (Combo). The test measures the execution speed of rendering simple HTML templates using these libraries.

**What is being tested?**

Two individual test cases are defined:

1. **React**: A test case that uses the React library to render an HTML template.
2. **Combo**: A test case that uses the ComboJS library (formerly known as React) to render an HTML template.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **React**: Uses the React library to render the HTML template.
2. **Combo**: Uses a custom implementation of React, which is identical in functionality to the original React library but is used for testing purposes.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**React:**

Pros:

* Well-established and widely adopted library
* Large community support and resources
* Fast development cycle

Cons:

* Steeper learning curve due to complex architecture
* Can be overkill for simple use cases

**Combo (Custom React):**

Pros:

* Simplified architecture makes it easier to understand and learn
* Can be optimized for specific use cases
* Reduced overhead due to custom implementation

Cons:

* Smaller community support compared to original React library
* Custom implementation may require additional maintenance and updates

**Library and purpose:**

* **ComboJS (formerly known as React)**: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces. It provides a component-based architecture, virtual DOM, and efficient rendering.
* **Custom Combo**: A custom implementation of the React library, identical in functionality to the original library but used for testing purposes.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the execution speed of rendering simple HTML templates using these libraries.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to write a similar benchmark, you could also consider adding other JavaScript libraries as test cases, such as:

* Angular
* Vue.js
* Ember.js
* Preact

These alternatives would allow for a more comprehensive comparison of different JavaScript frameworks and their rendering performance.

Related benchmarks:

combo-vs-react (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: React vs Combo

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

React

Combo

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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