Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
JS v JQ Test
(version: 0)
JS v JQ Test
Comparing performance of:
JS vs JQ
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script> <div id='e'></div>
Script Preparation code:
var e = document.getElementById("e");
Tests:
JS
e.innerHtml;
JQ
$(e).html();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JS
JQ
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **What is being tested?** The provided benchmark compares two approaches to set inner HTML in an HTML element: JavaScript (JS) and jQuery (JQ). **Options being compared:** 1. **JavaScript (JS)**: * Set `e.innerHtml` directly. 2. **jQuery (JQ)**: * Use the `$()` function to select the element, followed by the `.html()` method. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **JavaScript (JS):** Pros: * Lightweight and efficient, as it only involves setting a property on an object. * No dependency on jQuery or additional libraries. Cons: * May not be compatible with older browsers that don't support modern JavaScript features. * Can be slower if the `innerHtml` setter is optimized for performance. **jQuery (JQ):** Pros: * Widely supported across different browsers and versions. * Provides a convenient and easy-to-use API for DOM manipulation. Cons: * Adds an extra dependency on jQuery, which may not be desirable for small projects or applications with tight size constraints. * Can introduce additional overhead due to the JavaScript engine's parsing and execution of the jQuery code. **Other considerations:** * The benchmark uses the `var` keyword for variable declarations, which was a common practice in older versions of JavaScript. This might affect compatibility with modern browsers that prefer `let` or `const`. * The test doesn't consider other approaches to set inner HTML, such as using template literals or CSS-in-JS solutions. **Library used:** The benchmark uses jQuery version 3.3.1. **Special JS feature/syntax:** None mentioned in the provided information. However, if we were to analyze the code further, we might notice that the `var` keyword is still being used, which could be seen as an older JavaScript syntax feature. **Other alternatives:** Alternatives to jQuery for DOM manipulation include: * Vanilla JavaScript (using native DOM methods and APIs) * React * Angular * Vue.js These libraries provide their own set of tools and APIs for manipulating the DOM, but often come with additional dependencies and learning curves.
Related benchmarks:
JS v JQ
Vanilla vs Jquery OPS/SEC 2
Jquery vs vanila
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?