Benchmark: jQuery 3.7.1 versus 1.11.0 - 3.0

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.12.4.min.js'></script>
<script>
  var $jq1124 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.0.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq1110 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.11.3.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq1113 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.1.min.js"></script>
<script>
  var $jq371 = $.noConflict(true);
</script>
<div>
  <ul id="menu">
    <li class="menu-item">1</li>
    <li class="menu-item">2</li>
    <li class="menu-item">3</li>
    <li class="menu-item">4</li>  
  </ul>
</div>

Script Preparation code:

function tests($) {
    $(".menu-item").eq(2).closest("ul").css({
      "background-color": "red"
    }).parent().css({
      "border": "1px solid blue"
    }).append($("<p></p>").text("Text.").css({
      "background-color": "green"
    })).end().end().remove();
  console.log('tests' + $);
}

Tests:

1.12.4
tests($jq1124);
1.11.0
tests($jq1110);
1.11.3
tests($jq1113);
3.7.1
tests($jq371);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1.12.4
1.11.0
1.11.3
3.7.1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

3.7.1

59K/s

1.12.4

51K/s

1.11.0

50K/s

1.11.3

48K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ 3.7.1	59,467 Ops/sec
1.12.4	50,668 Ops/sec
1.11.0	50,453 Ops/sec
1.11.3	47,697 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two different jQuery versions (1.11.0, 1.12.4, and 3.7.1) in a specific scenario. The test case uses jQuery as a library to manipulate HTML elements.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a function `tests($)` that takes the jQuery object `$` as an argument. Within this function:

*   It selects the element with the class `menu-item` and gets its closest parent (`ul`) element.
*   The closest parent's background color is set to red, its parent's border is set to 1px solid blue, a new paragraph element is appended, and the test case logs some information.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes links to different jQuery versions (1.12.4, 1.11.0, 1.11.3, and 3.7.1) along with their respective `$.noConflict()` calls. These calls help ensure that each version of jQuery is used independently.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case corresponds to a specific jQuery version:

*   `tests($jq1124)` runs the script preparation code using jQuery 1.12.4.
*   `tests($jq1110)` runs the script preparation code using jQuery 1.11.0.
*   `tests($jq1113)` runs the script preparation code using jQuery 1.11.3.
*   `tests($jq371)` runs the script preparation code using jQuery 3.7.1.

**Browser and Device Information**

The benchmark results include information about the browser (Chrome 127), device platform (Desktop), operating system (Linux), and execution per second for each test case.

Now, let's explore some options compared in this benchmark:

*   **Versioning**: The benchmark compares different versions of jQuery (1.11.0, 1.12.4, and 3.7.1) to determine which one performs best.
*   **Library usage**: The benchmark uses a library (jQuery) to manipulate HTML elements, allowing for a controlled comparison between different versions.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros of this approach include:

*   **Isolated testing**: Each version of jQuery is used independently, ensuring that the results are accurate and not influenced by other libraries or code.
*   **Controlled environment**: The benchmark provides a controlled environment to compare different versions of jQuery in a specific scenario.

However, there are some cons:

*   **Limited scope**: This benchmark only compares three versions of jQuery, which might not be representative of the entire ecosystem.
*   **HTML specificity**: The use of an `ul` element with a specific class might affect performance, as it introduces additional complexity to the test case.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for comparing JavaScript libraries or frameworks include:

*   **Benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark**: These tools provide more comprehensive support for benchmarking and can handle multiple versions of a library.
*   **Using a standardized test suite**: This approach involves creating a set of tests that are widely adopted across the industry, allowing for comparisons between different implementations.
*   **Testing on different devices and browsers**: Adding device and browser diversity to the benchmark would provide more representative results.

These alternatives can be useful when you want to compare multiple versions of a library or framework across various platforms. However, they might require more setup and configuration compared to MeasureThat.net's simple approach.

jQuery 3.7.1 versus 1.11.0 - 3.0 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `1.12.4 vs 1.11.0 vs 1.11.3 vs 3.7.1`

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

1.12.4

1.11.0

1.11.3

3.7.1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

jQuery 3.7.1 versus 1.11.0 - 3.0 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1.12.4 vs 1.11.0 vs 1.11.3 vs 3.7.1

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

1.12.4

1.11.0

1.11.3

3.7.1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `1.12.4 vs 1.11.0 vs 1.11.3 vs 3.7.1`