Benchmark: Vanilla JS VS JQuery 3.7 DOM perfomance

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="
https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/jquery@3.7.0/dist/jquery.min.js
"></script>
<div id="nhngodo">Hi! NHNgodo!</div>

Tests:

Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementById("nhngodo"); el.innerText = "Hi! NHNgodo!";
Jquery
$("#nhngodo").text("Hi! NHNgodo!");

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:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	322663.0 Ops/sec
Jquery	163752.5 Ops/sec

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 is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: Vanilla JavaScript and jQuery 3.7 for setting the text content of an HTML element. The benchmark uses a simple script that retrieves an element by its ID, sets its text content to a string, and then measures the execution time.

**Script Preparation Code**

There is no Script Preparation Code provided in the benchmark definition, which means that the test cases will execute from scratch without any pre-run setup or cleanup.

**HTML Preparation Code**

The HTML Preparation Code includes a single `<div>` element with an ID of "nhngodo" and its initial text content set to "Hi! NHNgodo!". This element is used as the target for the performance benchmarking.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Vanilla JS**: The first test case uses Vanilla JavaScript syntax to retrieve the element by its ID and set its text content using the `innerText` property.
2. **jQuery**: The second test case uses jQuery 3.7 syntax to retrieve the element by its ID and set its text content using the `$` function, followed by the `.text()` method.

**Library**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library. jQuery provides an easier way to manipulate the DOM compared to Vanilla JavaScript. The `jQuery` function allows you to select elements based on their IDs, classes, or attributes, and then execute custom code on those elements.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. Both test cases use standard JavaScript concepts and jQuery's DOM manipulation capabilities.

**Pros and Cons of Approaches**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Vanilla JavaScript**:
	+ Pros: No dependencies, lightweight, and well-suited for small-scale projects.
	+ Cons: Can be more verbose and error-prone compared to jQuery.
* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: Easy-to-use, feature-rich, and widely adopted. Provides a convenient way to manipulate the DOM.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra dependency, which can increase the overall size of your application.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to jQuery or Vanilla JavaScript for this specific use case, here are some options:

* **Vanilla JavaScript**: Use other libraries like Moment.js for date manipulation or Lodash for utility functions.
* **jQuery**: Consider using other libraries like React or Angular for more complex web applications.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or approach depends on your project's requirements, complexity, and performance constraints.

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla JS VS JQuery 3.7 DOM perfomance (version: 0)

Vanilla JS VS JQuery 3.7 DOM perfomance

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Jquery

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Jquery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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