Benchmark: jquery vs js classList

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

jq
$('#el').addClass('red');
jq & js
$('#el')[0].classList.add('red');
js
document.getElementById('el').classList.add('red');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jq
jq & js
js

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.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial in today's fast-paced web development. Let's dive into the provided benchmark and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using jQuery and native JavaScript to add an event listener or a class to an HTML element. The benchmark uses three test cases:

1. `$('#el').addClass('red');` - This is a traditional jQuery way of adding a class.
2. `$('#el')[0].classList.add('red');` - This is a hybrid approach that combines jQuery and native JavaScript.
3. `document.getElementById('el').classList.add('red');` - This is the native JavaScript way without using jQuery.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular, fast-growing library (initially released in 2006) designed to simplify DOM manipulation and event handling in web pages. Its syntax is more concise than native JavaScript and provides several benefits:

Pros:

* Easier to write and read
* Works well with other libraries and plugins

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead due to its implementation
* May not be the best choice for performance-critical code

**Native JavaScript**

The native JavaScript approach uses built-in DOM methods, such as `document.getElementById()` and `classList.add()`, without relying on a library like jQuery.

Pros:

* Faster execution speed
* More control over the DOM manipulation
* No extra overhead from a library

Cons:

* May require more code to achieve the same result
* Less readable for developers unfamiliar with native JavaScript

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6's `classList` property, which provides a simple and efficient way to manage classes on elements. This feature is widely supported in modern browsers.

Now, let's examine the benchmark results:

**Benchmark Results**

The test shows that using native JavaScript (`document.getElementById('el').classList.add('red');`) outperforms both jQuery approaches ( `$('#el').addClass('red');` and `$('#el')[0].classList.add('red');`). The hybrid approach is slower than native JavaScript but faster than the traditional jQuery method.

**Other Alternatives**

When comparing performance in JavaScript, it's essential to consider other factors beyond just the execution speed of a specific code snippet:

1. **Memory allocation**: How much memory does your code allocate for data structures or variables?
2. **Garbage collection**: How often is garbage collected, and how does it impact performance?
3. **Browser cache**: Are there any caching mechanisms in place that can influence performance?

When optimizing JavaScript performance, consider these aspects to get a comprehensive understanding of the impact on your application.

For this specific benchmark, using native JavaScript (`document.getElementById('el').classList.add('red');`) seems like the most efficient approach, but it's essential to weigh this against other factors when making decisions about code optimization.

Related benchmarks:

jquery vs js classList (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jq vs jq & js vs js

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jq

jq & js

js

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):