Benchmark: test02 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<div>
  Hello
</div>

Tests:

ResizeObserver
let value; const observer = new ResizeObserver(entries => { value = entries[0].contentRect.width; }) observer.observe(document.body) for (let i = 0; i <= 1920; i++) { window.resizeTo(i, 1000) }
matchMedia
let value; const handleMatchChange = (val) => { value = val; } const match1 = window.matchMedia('screen and (min-width: 0px)') match1.addEventListener('change', handleMatchChange); for (let i = 0; i <= 1920; i++) { window.resizeTo(i, 1000) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ResizeObserver
matchMedia

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 what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using `ResizeObserver` and using `matchMedia`. Both methods are used to observe changes in the browser's window size, but they differ in their implementation and usage.

**Options Compared**

The two options compared are:

1. **ResizeObserver**: A built-in API in modern browsers that allows you to observe changes to an element's size, layout, or other properties.
2. **matchMedia**: A Web API that allows you to match a media query against the current device conditions (e.g., screen width).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**ResizeObserver**

Pros:

* More efficient than `matchMedia` for observing changes in element sizes.
* Provides more detailed information about the observed property changes (e.g., contentRect, layoutMode).
* Less prone to false positives due to device orientation or screen size changes.

Cons:

* Only works on modern browsers that support it.
* Requires a separate observer instance for each element being monitored.

**matchMedia**

Pros:

* Wide browser support, including older versions.
* Simple and easy to use syntax.
* Can be used to match multiple media queries simultaneously.

Cons:

* Less efficient than `ResizeObserver` for observing changes in element sizes.
* May produce false positives due to device orientation or screen size changes.
* Requires more code to achieve the same result as `ResizeObserver`.

**Other Considerations**

* Both approaches are suitable for monitoring window size changes, but `ResizeObserver` is generally preferred for its efficiency and detailed information.

**Library/Library Purpose**

There isn't a specific library being used in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in learning more about libraries that provide similar functionality, some examples include:

* `resize-observer`: A polyfill for the `ResizeObserver` API.
* `media-query-listener`: A library that provides a simple way to listen for media query changes.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in learning more about special features or syntax in JavaScript, some examples include:

* `async/await`
* Promises
* Generators
* Closures

Keep in mind that the test cases provided only use standard JavaScript syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare other approaches for monitoring window size changes, consider using:

* Window.addEventListener('resize', callback)
* ResizeJS: A library that provides a simple way to monitor window size changes.
* Velocity.js: A library that provides a high-performance animation engine and can be used to monitor window size changes.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, browser support, and code complexity.

Related benchmarks:

test02 (version: 0)

ResizeObserver vs matchMedia

Comparing performance of: ResizeObserver vs matchMedia

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ResizeObserver

matchMedia

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):