Benchmark: jQ vs vanilla - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

vanilla
parseInt(getComputedStyle(document.body).fontSize, 10);
jquery
parseInt($('body').css('font-size'), 10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
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; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanilla	692568.6 Ops/sec
jquery	238404.8 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 JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is defined by two test cases: "vanilla" and "jquery". These are microbenchmarks that compare the performance of JavaScript code using native syntax (vanilla) versus jQuery, a popular JavaScript library for DOM manipulation.

**What's being compared?**

In this specific benchmark, we have two test cases:

1. **Vanilla**: The first test case uses the native `parseInt()` function to extract the font size from the `fontSize` CSS property of the `<body>` element. This is done without any additional libraries or functions.
2. **jQuery**: The second test case uses jQuery's `css()` method to retrieve the font size value from the same CSS property.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Native JavaScript (`vanilla`): Uses native `parseInt()` function to extract font size.
* jQuery: Uses jQuery's `css()` method to retrieve font size, which may involve additional overhead due to library initialization and parsing.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Native JavaScript (Vanilla)**

Pros:

* No additional library dependencies or overhead.
* Typically faster execution times since it doesn't require the overhead of loading a library.
* Native syntax is generally easier to optimize for performance.

Cons:

* Requires manual handling of CSS properties, which can be error-prone and cumbersome.
* May not work across all browsers or versions.

**jQuery**

Pros:

* Convenient and easy-to-use API for DOM manipulation and CSS-related tasks.
* Works across most modern browsers with minimal modifications.

Cons:

* Introduces additional library overhead and dependencies.
* May incur performance overhead due to parsing, initialization, and other complexities.

**Library (jQuery)**
In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to simplify the task of retrieving font size values from CSS properties. The `css()` method is a convenient way to access styles, but it may introduce additional overhead compared to native syntax.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None mentioned**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**
If you wanted to run alternative tests, you could consider the following:

* Using other libraries like React or Angular for DOM manipulation.
* Implementing custom solutions using native JavaScript and/or Web APIs (e.g., `window.getComputedStyle()`).
* Comparing performance with different CSS property extraction methods (e.g., using a utility library).

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would require separate benchmark definitions and setup, as they introduce new variables and potential performance differences.

Overall, this benchmark provides a straightforward comparison between native JavaScript and jQuery for a specific task: retrieving font size values from CSS properties.

Related benchmarks:

jQ vs vanilla (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs jquery

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

jquery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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