Benchmark: Native JS closest vs jQuery closest

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="end">
  <div>
    <div>
      <div>
        <div>
          <div>
            <div>
              <div>
                <div>
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <div id="start"></div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
</div>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var startNavive = document.getElementById('start');
var startjQuery = $('#start');

Tests:

Native JS closest
startNavive.closest('#end');
jQuery closest
startjQuery.closest('#end');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native JS closest
jQuery closest

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.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two approaches to find the closest ancestor element in HTML: Native JavaScript and jQuery.

The test creates an HTML structure with multiple nested div elements, and then uses both native JavaScript (`closest()` method) and jQuery (`closest()` method) to find the closest ancestor element with the ID `#end`. The test measures the execution time of each approach.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Uses the built-in `closest()` method in JavaScript, which is part of the ECMAScript standard.
2. **jQuery**: Uses jQuery's `closest()` method, a plugin that extends the native JavaScript DOM API.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Faster execution time since it doesn't require an additional library
* More control over the execution environment

Cons:

* Requires explicit support for ECMAScript 5 and later versions in browsers
* May not work as expected in older browsers or with limited DOM manipulation capabilities

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Wide compatibility across modern browsers (IE 9+)
* Simpler code and more intuitive API compared to native JavaScript implementation

Cons:

* Slower execution time due to the additional overhead of jQuery
* Requires loading an extra library, which can impact page load times

**Other considerations**

When choosing between Native JavaScript and jQuery for DOM manipulation, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If speed is crucial, native JavaScript might be a better choice. However, if code readability and simplicity are more important, jQuery's API might be more suitable.
* Browser support: Ensure that your target browsers support ECMAScript 5 and later versions for native JavaScript or have jQuery loaded.

**Library description**

The library being tested is jQuery, a popular JavaScript library that extends the DOM API with additional functionality. The `closest()` method is part of this extension, allowing developers to find ancestor elements in a more convenient way.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This test does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's covered by the ECMAScript standard and jQuery's implementation.

**Alternatives**

Other libraries that provide similar functionality to jQuery for DOM manipulation include:

1. **Lodash**: A utility library with a `findClosest` function.
2. **Underscore.js**: A functional programming library with a `closest` function.
3. **React**: While not specifically designed for DOM manipulation, React's `findDOMNode` method can be used for similar purposes.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, code simplicity, and feature set compared to jQuery or native JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Native JS closest vs jQuery closest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native JS closest vs jQuery closest

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native JS closest

jQuery closest

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):