Benchmark: jquery vs vanilla

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = {};

Tests:

jquery
$.extend(data,{property: 'value'});
vanilla js
data.property = 'value';

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery
vanilla 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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of jQuery and vanilla JavaScript (ECMAScript) when executing simple assignment operations.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery**: The benchmark uses the latest version of jQuery (3.1.1) to execute the assignment operation.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: The benchmark executes the same assignment operation using only standard ECMAScript syntax, without any libraries or external dependencies.

**Pros and Cons**

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* jQuery is a well-maintained and widely adopted library that provides a lot of features out-of-the-box.
* It's often used in production environments due to its extensive community support and documentation.

Cons:

* Adding an extra library dependency can increase the size of the executable code and potentially impact performance.
* jQuery has a larger footprint compared to vanilla JavaScript, which may lead to slower execution times for smaller payloads.

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Using only standard ECMAScript syntax means that there's no additional overhead from a library or framework.
* Vanilla JavaScript is typically faster than jQuery because it doesn't involve the overhead of parsing and compiling the library's code.

Cons:

* Vanilla JavaScript requires more development effort, as developers must implement features themselves rather than relying on a pre-existing library.
* Without jQuery, some developers may not be familiar with the syntax and nuances of ECMAScript, which can lead to slower learning curves for beginners.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as-is, without any modifications or customizations. This ensures that the results are representative of the standard usage patterns for the library.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The assignment operations are simple and straightforward, using only standard ECMAScript syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance, here are a few options:

1. **Bench.js**: A popular JavaScript benchmarking library that provides a lot of flexibility and customization options.
2. **Microbenchmark**: Another widely used microbenchmarking library for Node.js and browser environments.
3. **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight and simple benchmarking library that's designed specifically for comparing performance between different implementations.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

jquery vs vanilla (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jquery vs vanilla js

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jquery

vanilla 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):