Benchmark: ES6+ vs JQuery select attribute

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="foo" bar="baz">Hello World</div>

Tests:

ES6+
let attribute = document.getElementById('foo').getAttribute('bar');
JQuery
$('#foo').attr('bar');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ES6+
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:127.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/127.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ES6+	3892164.2 Ops/sec
JQuery	1893850.0 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 benchmark and its components.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: ES6+ (specifically, using `document.getElementById` followed by `getAttribute`) and jQuery (using `$('#foo').attr('bar')`). The goal is to compare the speed of these two methods in selecting an HTML element with a specific ID (`#foo`) and then accessing one of its attributes (`bar`).

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **ES6+**: This approach uses native JavaScript methods, specifically `document.getElementById` and `getAttribute`. It is a modern JavaScript way to access DOM elements and their attributes.
2. **jQuery**: This approach uses the jQuery library, which provides an additional layer of abstraction for working with DOM elements. In this case, it's used to select an element by ID (`$('#foo')`) and then access its attribute (`attr('bar')`).

**Pros and Cons**

**ES6+:**

Pros:

* Native JavaScript, so no additional library is required.
* Can be more efficient, as it doesn't add extra overhead from a library.

Cons:

* Requires a modern browser that supports ES6 syntax (e.g., Chrome mid-2018).
* May require additional code to handle errors or edge cases.

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Wide adoption and support across various browsers.
* Provides an easy-to-use API for DOM manipulation and attribute access.
* Can handle errors and edge cases more robustly than native JavaScript.

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead due to the library, potentially slowing down execution.
* May not be as efficient as native JavaScript methods.

**Library used**

In this benchmark, jQuery is included via an external script tag (`<script src="..."></script>`). The `$.` notation refers to the jQuery object.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two approaches for accessing DOM elements and attributes.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative methods, here are some options:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript alternatives**: You could explore other native JavaScript methods for accessing DOM elements and attributes, such as `document.querySelector` or `Element.prototype.getAttribute`.
2. **Other libraries or frameworks**: You might want to compare the performance of other popular front-end libraries or frameworks, like React or Angular.
3. **Async approaches**: If you wanted to test asynchronous approaches, you could add additional components to the benchmark that simulate delays or use Web Workers.

Keep in mind that adding more complexity can make it harder to interpret results and may not provide meaningful insights for your specific question.

Related benchmarks:

ES6+ vs JQuery select attribute (version: 0)

Compares the performance of ES6+ in Chrome (mid-2018) against JQuery for selecting an element by ID and then getting one of its attributes.

Comparing performance of: ES6+ vs JQuery

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

ES6+

JQuery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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