Benchmark: jquery3.6.0 vs jquery3.7.0

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.6.0.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq331 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.0.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  var jq214 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div id="testElement"></div>

Tests:

jquery3.6.0
var element = jq331('#testElement'); element.removeClass('test-class'); element.addClass('test-class'); element.removeClass('test-class');
jquery3.7.0
var element = jq214('#testElement'); element.removeClass('test-class'); element.addClass('test-class'); element.removeClass('test-class');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery3.6.0
jquery3.7.0

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark created on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two versions of jQuery (3.6.0 and 3.7.0) in a specific test case.

**Test Case and Comparison Options**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `jquery3.6.0`: This test case uses jQuery version 3.6.0.
2. `jquery3.7.0`: This test case uses jQuery version 3.7.0.

Both test cases perform the following operations on a HTML element with an ID of "testElement":

a. Remove a class named "test-class" from the element.
b. Add a new class named "test-class" to the element.
c. Remove the previously added class ("test-class") from the element.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution times (in executions per second) of both jQuery versions when performing these operations.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Using `$.noConflict()`**: Both test cases use `$` to reference jQuery, but with different versions. Using `.noConflict()` is a good practice when using multiple versions of jQuery on the same page.
	* Pros: Ensures that each version of jQuery is used independently, reducing conflicts between them.
	* Cons: Requires additional code to ensure compatibility and performance.
2. **Different jQuery versions**: The test cases use different jQuery versions (3.6.0 and 3.7.0).
	* Pros: Allows for a fair comparison between the two versions.
	* Cons: May introduce differences in behavior, syntax, or performance that could affect the benchmark results.

**Library and Its Purpose**

In this benchmark, `$.noConflict()` is used to ensure that each version of jQuery is used independently. This library helps manage conflicts between different versions of jQuery on the same page.

`jQuery` is a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling. It provides an easy-to-use API for selecting and manipulating HTML elements.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider the following alternatives:

1. **Use a different DOM manipulation library**, such as VanillaJS or React.
2. **Compare other jQuery versions**, such as 3.5.0 or 4.0.0.
3. **Add more test cases** with varying degrees of complexity to provide a more comprehensive comparison.

Keep in mind that creating accurate benchmarks requires careful consideration of factors like browser, hardware, and JavaScript engine variations.

Related benchmarks:

jquery3.6.0 vs jquery3.7.0 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jquery3.6.0 vs jquery3.7.0

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jquery3.6.0

jquery3.7.0

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):