Benchmark: window.getComputedStyle vs. className #2

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="foo" class="dunno"></div>

Tests:

getComputedStyle
var i = 3000; while (i--) { chekele('foo'); } function chekele(element) { return window.getComputedStyle(document.getElementById(element), null).display === "none"; }
className
var i = 3000; while (i--) { chekele('foo'); } function chekele(element) { return document.getElementById(element).className.indexOf('hide') === -1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
getComputedStyle
className

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if an element is hidden: using `window.getComputedStyle` and checking the `className` of the element directly.

**Options Compared**

1. **Window.getComputedStyle**: This method retrieves the computed style properties of a given element, including its display property. In this case, it checks if the display property is set to "none", which indicates that the element is hidden.
2. **className**: This approach directly checks if the `hide` class is not present in the element's `className` attribute.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Window.getComputedStyle**:
	+ Pros: This method provides a more robust way to check if an element is hidden, as it considers all computed style properties, not just the display property. It also works for elements with complex styles.
	+ Cons: This method can be slower and more memory-intensive than checking the `className` directly, as it involves accessing the DOM and computing styles.
* **className**:
	+ Pros: This approach is faster and more lightweight, as it only requires a simple string search. It's also easier to read and understand.
	+ Cons: This method may not work for elements with complex styles or dynamic styles that are computed on-the-fly.

**Library and Purpose**

The `chekele` function appears to be a custom implementation of the checks for both approaches. However, in reality, it would be more common to use built-in JavaScript functions like `window.getComputedStyle` or `document.querySelector` with CSS selectors (e.g., `:empty` or `hidden`) to perform these checks.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **CSSOM** (CSS Object Model): Instead of using `window.getComputedStyle`, you could use the CSSOM API to access and manipulate styles.
2. **QuerySelector**: Using a query selector like `:empty` or `hidden` with `document.querySelector` can provide a faster and more efficient way to check if an element is hidden.
3. **Native JavaScript checks**: Depending on the browser and version, you might be able to use native JavaScript checks (e.g., `Element.prototype.offsetHeight === 0`) to determine if an element is hidden.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different pros and cons depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

window.getComputedStyle vs. className #2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: getComputedStyle vs className

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

getComputedStyle

className

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):