Benchmark: JS VS JQUERY leotest22

HTML Preparation code:

<script
			  src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.min.js"
			  integrity="sha256-/xUj+3OJU5yExlq6GSYGSHk7tPXikynS7ogEvDej/m4="
			  crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Script Preparation code:

document.body.innerHtml = ''

Tests:

JS
const range = document.createRange(); const documentFragment = range.createContextualFragment(` <div> <label class="clickAndCollect-label" id="click-and-collect"> <div class="clickAndCollect-input-container"> <input class="clickAndCollect-input" type="checkbox" value="click-and-collect"> <span class="clickAndCollect-label-text">Entregarme el pedido hasta mi vehiculo JS</span> </div> </label> </div> `); document.body.appendChild(documentFragment);
JQUERY
const el = $(` <div> <label class="clickAndCollect-label" id="click-and-collect"> <div class="clickAndCollect-input-container"> <input class="clickAndCollect-input" type="checkbox" value="click-and-collect"> <span class="clickAndCollect-label-text">Entregarme el pedido hasta mi vehiculo JQ</span> </div> </label> </div> `); $('body').append(el);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS
JQUERY

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 15; Mobile; rv:143.0) Gecko/143.0 Firefox/143.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 143 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JS	1344.1 Ops/sec
JQUERY	1141.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark uses JSON data to define two test cases: one using JavaScript (JS) and another using jQuery (JQUERY). The goal of this benchmark is to compare the execution performance of these two approaches on a specific HTML document structure.

**Script Preparation Code**

Before running each test case, the script preparation code sets up the environment by clearing the `innerHTML` property of the `document.body`. This ensures that any previous content or state is reset before the benchmark runs.

The HTML preparation code includes a jQuery library reference with a valid integrity token, which is used to verify the authenticity and integrity of the downloaded JavaScript file.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **JS**: The first test case uses JavaScript's built-in `document.createRange()` and `createContextualFragment()` methods to create an HTML document fragment.
2. **JQUERY**: The second test case uses jQuery's `$` function to parse the same HTML template and append it to the `body` element.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the execution performance of these two approaches on a specific HTML structure, measuring the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons associated with each approach:

* **JS**:
	+ Pros: Native JavaScript implementation can be more lightweight and efficient.
	+ Cons: May require manual handling of DOM manipulation, which can lead to errors and performance issues if not implemented correctly.
* **JQUERY**:
	+ Pros: jQuery provides a convenient and widely-used API for manipulating the DOM, reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.
	+ Cons: Includes an additional JavaScript library that needs to be loaded, potentially increasing overhead.

**Library Usage**

jQuery is used in both test cases. Its `$` function is used to parse the HTML template and append it to the `body` element. jQuery's role is to provide a convenient interface for DOM manipulation, which can simplify development but may add complexity to benchmarking.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not specifically use any unique or specialized JavaScript features or syntax.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for similar benchmarking scenarios could include:

* Using a different JavaScript library or framework (e.g., React, Angular)
* Comparing the performance of native JavaScript and other languages (e.g., C++, Python) using a JavaScript-to-native compiler
* Focusing on specific aspects of web development, such as SEO, accessibility, or content security

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative benchmarking scenarios depends on the specific requirements and goals of the project.

Related benchmarks:

JS VS JQUERY leotest22 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: JS vs JQUERY

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

JS

JQUERY

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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