Benchmark: tessssf - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Script Preparation code:

var el = document.getElementById("test");

Tests:

1
let i = 0; while (i < 10000) { el.style.setProperty("transition", "transform 0s;") el.style.setProperty("transform","translate3d(0,' + 35 +'px,0);"); i++; }
2
let i = 0; while (i < 10000) { el.style = 'transform: translate3d(0,' + 35 + 'px,0); transition: transform 0s;'; i++; }
3
let style = { transition: "transform 0s;", transform: "translate3d(0,' + 35 +'px,0);" }; let i = 0; while (i < 10000) { Object.assign(el.style, style); i++; }
4
let i = 0; while (i < 10000) { el.setAttribute('style','transform: translate3d(0,' + 35 + 'px,0); transition: transform 0s;'); i++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3
4

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance of different ways to set CSS styles on an HTML element using JavaScript. The test cases involve setting the `transition` and `transform` properties on the `el` element, which is obtained by querying a DOM element with the ID "test".

**Options compared:**

There are four options being compared:

1. **Option 1**: Setting the style property directly using the dot notation (`el.style.setProperty("transition", "transform 0s")`).
2. **Option 2**: Setting the style property using string concatenation (`el.style = 'transform: translate3d(0,' + 35 + 'px,0); transition: transform 0s;'`)
3. **Option 3**: Creating an object with the styles and assigning it to the `style` property using `Object.assign(el.style, style)`
4. **Option 4**: Setting the `style` attribute directly using the double bracket notation (`el.setAttribute('style', 'transform: translate3d(0,' + 35 + 'px,0); transition: transform 0s;')`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Option 1 (Direct dot notation)**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, no overhead of creating a string or object.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the property setter's behavior, which can lead to multiple assignments.
2. **Option 2 (String concatenation)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster due to the string's immutability, reducing the number of assignments needed.
	* Cons: Creates a new string object, which may incur additional memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
3. **Option 3 (Object.assign)**:
	* Pros: Uses the optimized `Object.assign` method, which is likely to be faster due to its internal implementation.
	* Cons: Requires creating an object with the styles, which can lead to additional memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
4. **Option 4 (Double bracket notation)**:
	* Pros: Similar to Option 1, but uses a more modern syntax that may be faster or more efficient due to its inherent properties.
	* Cons: May not work in older browsers or environments.

**Library usage**

None of the options use any external libraries, which is good for simplicity and ease of implementation. However, using libraries like jQuery or Modernizr could potentially alter the benchmark results.

**Special JavaScript features**

The test cases do not explicitly utilize any special JavaScript features like async/await, `let` and `const`, arrow functions, or classes. However, some modern browsers may optimize certain aspects of these features for better performance.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to setting CSS styles using JavaScript include:

1. Using the `CSSStyleDeclaration` interface: This provides a more object-oriented way of accessing and manipulating CSS properties.
2. Utilizing CSS-in-JS solutions like styled-components or emotion: These libraries provide optimized ways of styling React components, but may incur additional overhead due to their compilation and parsing mechanisms.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be directly comparable to the provided options, as they often involve different design patterns, syntax, and assumptions about the DOM and CSS behavior.

Related benchmarks:

tessssf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

4

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):