Benchmark: New Jquery, Vanilla event listen

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<ul id="menu">
  <li>Item 1</li>
  <li>Item 2</li>
  <li>Item 3</li>
  <li>Item 4</li>
  <li>Item 5</li>
</ul>

Script Preparation code:


        Benchmark.prototype.setup = function() {

          
  var element = document.getElementById( 'menu' ).getElementsByTagName( 'li' )[2];

        
  };

Tests:

vanilla
document.getElementById( 'menu' ).addEventListener( 'click', function( event ) { if( event.target && event.target.nodeName === 'LI' ) { // Event triggered } }); element.click();
jq
jQuery( '#menu' ).on( 'click', 'li', function() { // Event triggered }); element.click();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance difference between using vanilla (native) event listeners and jQuery for handling click events on an HTML element.

**Options compared:**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Vanilla Event Listener**: Using native JavaScript functions to attach an event listener to the `click` event of an HTML element.
2. **jQuery Event Listener**: Using jQuery's `on()` function to attach an event listener to the `click` event of a DOM element.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Vanilla Event Listener**
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and efficient, as it doesn't rely on additional library functions.
		- Can be useful for smaller applications or projects where size matters.
	+ Cons:
		- May require more manual effort to set up and maintain event listeners.
		- Less readable and maintainable code due to the lack of abstraction provided by jQuery.
* **jQuery Event Listener**
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a convenient and easy-to-use API for attaching event listeners.
		- Can simplify code and reduce the amount of manual effort required.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds extra library overhead, which may impact performance in some cases.
		- May lead to less readable and maintainable code due to the increased abstraction.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a library to provide its `on()` function for attaching event listeners. jQuery's purpose is to simplify DOM manipulation and event handling in web development.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on the difference between using vanilla and jQuery-based approaches for event listening.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative options, here are a few:

1. **ES6 Event Listeners**: Modern JavaScript provides built-in support for event listeners using ES6 syntax (`addEventListener()`).
2. **Lodash Debunker**: Lodash's `debunker` function can be used to compare the performance of different approaches to debouncing or throttling events.
3. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Other benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js, jsperf, or Microbenchmark provide more advanced features for comparing performance and handling edge cases.

These alternatives might not directly relate to event listeners, but they offer alternative ways to measure performance in JavaScript applications.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on your specific project requirements, code readability, and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

New Jquery, Vanilla event listen (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs jq

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

jq

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):