Benchmark: jQuery width vs computed style

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

<style>
  #wrap {
    width:5rem;
  height: 3rem;
    margin:10px;
    padding:10px;
    border:10px solid black;
  }

</style>

<div id="wrap1">
 
</div>

Script Preparation code:

var $div = $("#wrap1");
var div = document.getElementById("wrap1");

Tests:

jquery
const width = $div.width();
native
const width = parseInt(getComputedStyle(div, '').width);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jquery	361586.4 Ops/sec
native	666696.1 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.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to get the width of an HTML element: using jQuery's `width()` method and using the `getComputedStyle` function with the `width` property.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery**: Using jQuery's `width()` method to get the width of the element.
2. **Native**: Using the `getComputedStyle` function with the `width` property to get the width of the element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Easier to use, especially for developers familiar with jQuery.
* Often faster than native approaches since it abstracts away some low-level details.
* Can be more convenient for getting multiple styles (e.g., `height`, `color`).

Cons:

* Adds an extra dependency on the jQuery library, which may slow down page loads.
* May not be as fast as native approaches for very large datasets or performance-critical code.

**Native:**

Pros:

* No additional dependencies or overhead from the jQuery library.
* Can be faster than jQuery approaches since it avoids the abstraction layer.
* Often preferred by developers who want fine-grained control over DOM interactions.

Cons:

* Requires more knowledge of the browser's DOM and CSSOM APIs.
* May be slower for certain use cases due to the extra complexity.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM interactions, event handling, and other tasks. In this benchmark, it's used to get the width of an element using the `width()` method. The `getComputedStyle` function is used internally by jQuery to retrieve the styles, so the difference between these two approaches is mainly about which level of abstraction you prefer.

**JavaScript Feature/ Syntax**

The test case uses the `$` symbol to refer to the jQuery library. This is a shorthand notation that's specific to jQuery and allows developers to write concise code using jQuery functions like `$(selector)` or `.width()`.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider your project requirements:

* Do you need fine-grained control over DOM interactions? (Native)
* Are you willing to add a small overhead from the jQuery library in exchange for ease of use? (jQuery)

For most projects, using jQuery's `width()` method is a reasonable choice, but if performance-critical code or fine-grained control are essential, using native approaches may be preferred.

**Other Alternatives**

Alternative approaches to get the width of an element include:

1. Using other libraries like React, Angular, or Vue.js (which often provide similar functionality).
2. Implementing custom DOM manipulation using JavaScript's built-in `offsetWidth` and ` ClientWidth` properties.
3. Using CSS media queries to define styles for different screen sizes or devices.

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the best choice depends on your specific project requirements and performance constraints.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery width vs computed style (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jquery vs native

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

jquery

native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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