Benchmark: Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance updated

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.3/jquery.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Vanilla JS
var r = new XMLHttpRequest(); r.open("POST", "http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api", true); r.onreadystatechange = function () { if (r.readyState != 4 || r.status != 200) return; alert("Success: " + r.responseText); }; r.send("banana=yellow");
Jquery
$.ajax({ cache: false, method: 'POST', url: "http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api", data: "banana=yellow", success: function (data) { alert("Success: " + data); }, });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
Jquery

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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using Vanilla JavaScript for AJAX requests versus using jQuery for the same purpose. The tests aim to measure which approach is faster, more efficient, or has better performance under specific conditions.

**Options Compared**

Two main options are compared:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This approach uses the native XMLHttpRequest object to send HTTP requests.
2. **jQuery**: This approach utilizes the jQuery library's `$.ajax()` method to send HTTP requests.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Vanilla JavaScript

Pros:

* **Lightweight**: Since it doesn't rely on an external library, Vanilla JavaScript is generally smaller in size and has fewer dependencies.
* **Native Support**: XMLHttpRequest is a built-in object in JavaScript, providing direct access to native browser functionality.

Cons:

* **More Code**: Writing AJAX requests using XMLHttpRequest requires more code than using jQuery's `$.ajax()` method.
* **More Error Handling**: With Vanilla JavaScript, error handling can be more complex due to the lack of built-in support for AJAX-related errors.

### jQuery

Pros:

* **Simpler Syntax**: The jQuery library provides a simpler syntax for sending HTTP requests, making it easier to write and maintain code.
* **Built-in Error Handling**: jQuery's `$.ajax()` method includes built-in error handling mechanisms, reducing the need for explicit error handling code.

Cons:

* **External Library Dependency**: Using jQuery requires including an additional external library, which can increase the overall size of the application.
* **Additional Weight**: jQuery itself is a larger and more complex library than Vanilla JavaScript, potentially affecting performance.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a simplified way to interact with web pages. Its `$.ajax()` method is used extensively for sending HTTP requests and handling responses in many web applications.

In the context of this benchmark, jQuery's `$.ajax()` method is compared to Vanilla JavaScript's XMLHttpRequest object to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. The tests focus on the comparison between two established approaches: using Vanilla JavaScript for AJAX requests versus using jQuery for the same purpose.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for sending HTTP requests in web applications include:

* **Fetch API**: A newer, more modern API for making HTTP requests, introduced in HTML5.
* **Axios**: A popular JavaScript library for making HTTP requests that provides a simpler and more expressive API than XMLHttpRequest or jQuery's `$.ajax()` method.
* **AJAX libraries like Spring XML or GWT**: Other JavaScript libraries specifically designed for working with AJAX requests.

These alternatives might be considered as part of the broader context, but they are not directly compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance updated (version: 0)

Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Jquery

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Jquery

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):