Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
MarkTest11
(version: 0)
NA
Comparing performance of:
JQ sibinglings vs Vanilla
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> <form> <input type="text">Hi</input> <textarea>This is text area</textarea> <span id="testid"></span> </form>
Script Preparation code:
var elem = document.getElementById("testid");
Tests:
JQ sibinglings
var txt = $(elem).siblings("textarea").val();
Vanilla
for (sibling = elem.parentNode.firstChild; sibling; sibling = sibling.nextSibling) { if (sibling.nodeName==="TEXTAREA") { var txt = sibling.value; } }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JQ sibinglings
Vanilla
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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and what the pros and cons of each approach are. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to access the value of a `textarea` element within an HTML form. The test cases use either jQuery or vanilla JavaScript to achieve this goal. **Test Case 1: jQuery Siblings** * Benchmark Definition: `var txt = $(elem).siblings("textarea").val();` * Purpose: This test case measures the performance of using jQuery's `siblings()` method to find the nearest `textarea` element and then accessing its value. * Pros: + Easy to read and maintain, as it leverages a popular JavaScript library (jQuery) with a well-documented API. + Fast execution time, thanks to jQuery's optimized implementation under the hood. * Cons: + Additional dependency on the jQuery library, which may introduce latency due to its size and complexity. + May not be suitable for projects that avoid using external libraries. **Test Case 2: Vanilla JavaScript** * Benchmark Definition: `for (sibling = elem.parentNode.firstChild; sibling; sibling = sibling.nextSibling) { ... }` * Purpose: This test case measures the performance of using a traditional vanilla JavaScript loop to find and access the value of the nearest `textarea` element. * Pros: + No additional dependency on external libraries, reducing latency and dependencies. + Allows for more control over the implementation and optimization. * Cons: + More verbose and complex code compared to the jQuery approach. + May require more manual optimization efforts. **Library: jQuery** jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that provides a convenient and efficient way to manipulate the DOM. In this benchmark, jQuery's `siblings()` method is used to find the nearest `textarea` element and then access its value. The `$(elem)` notation is shorthand for creating a new jQuery object from the `elem` element. **Special JS Feature/Syntax: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options: * Using the `querySelector()` method instead of `siblings()`, which might be more efficient. * Leveraging CSS selectors to target the `textarea` element directly, eliminating the need for DOM manipulation altogether. * Employing template literals or other string interpolation methods to construct a string representing the textarea's value. Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and dependencies.
Related benchmarks:
MarkTest1
js vs jquery
test1113
Jquery vs vanila
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?