Benchmark: JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-o88AwQnZB+VDvE9tvIXrMQaPlFFSUTR+nldQm1LuPXQ=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>

Tests:

JQ
$("div").each(function(i){ $(this).text("a"); });
Vanilla
[...document.querySelectorAll("div")].map(e=>{ e.innerText = "a"; });
Vanilla No Map
let divs = document.querySelectorAll("div"); for(let i=1;i<divs.length;i++){ divs[i].innerText = "a"; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JQ
Vanilla
Vanilla No Map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JQ	11260.8 Ops/sec
Vanilla	17639.7 Ops/sec
Vanilla No Map	19985.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance differences between two approaches is crucial in JavaScript development, especially when choosing libraries or optimizing existing code.

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to achieve the same result:

1. **jQuery (JQ)**: This approach uses jQuery's `each` method to iterate over a collection of elements and sets their text content.
2. **Vanilla**: This approach uses native JavaScript methods, such as `Array.prototype.map()` and `Element.innerText`, to achieve the same result.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**jQuery (JQ) Pros:**

* Easier to read and maintain for developers familiar with jQuery.
* Often provides a more concise syntax for common DOM manipulation tasks.
* May be faster than native JavaScript methods due to its optimized implementation.

**jQuery (JQ) Cons:**

* Requires including an additional library (jQuery), which adds overhead in terms of size and load time.
* Can lead to over-reliance on jQuery, making it harder to understand and maintain code without the library.
* May not be compatible with older browsers or environments that don't support jQuery.

**Vanilla Pros:**

* Faster execution times since it doesn't require an additional library or overhead.
* More control over performance optimization, allowing developers to tailor their approach to specific use cases.
* Compatible with all modern browsers and environments.

**Vanilla Cons:**

* May require more boilerplate code for complex operations, making it harder to read and maintain.
* Requires a deeper understanding of native JavaScript methods and their limitations.

The provided benchmark result shows that the Vanilla "No Map" approach outperforms both JQ and Vanilla "Map" approaches, likely due to its optimized execution time.

Other alternatives to consider:

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for functional programming tasks, which might provide similar performance benefits to jQuery.
2. **Preact**: A lightweight alternative to React, designed for server-side rendering and faster execution times.
3. **Native Web APIs**: Other libraries or frameworks that utilize native Web APIs, such as `IntersectionObserver` or `WebStorage`, might offer comparable performance characteristics.

When choosing an approach, consider factors like:

* Performance requirements
* Code readability and maintainability
* Compatibility with target browsers and environments
* Familiarity with the library or framework

Ultimately, selecting the best approach depends on your specific project needs and constraints.

Related benchmarks:

JQUERY VS VANILLA v-na2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JQ vs Vanilla vs Vanilla No Map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JQ

Vanilla

Vanilla No Map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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