Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Add Class
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Vanilla vs JQuery
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script> <div class="test">Hallo</div>
Tests:
Vanilla
document.querySelector(".test").classList.add("new-class");
JQuery
$(document).find(".test").addClass("new-class");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Vanilla
JQuery
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of two approaches to add a class to an HTML element: vanilla JavaScript and jQuery. **Options compared:** Two options are being compared: 1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This approach uses the native `classList` property and the `add()` method to add a new class to the `.test` element. 2. **jQuery**: This approach uses the jQuery library's `$` function, specifically the `find()` method, to select the `.test` element and then calls the `addClass()` method on it. **Pros and cons:** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **Vanilla JavaScript:** Pros: * Lightweight and self-contained, requiring only the native DOM API. * Can be more efficient since it doesn't require loading an external library. Cons: * May not be as readable or maintainable for complex operations, especially when dealing with nested elements. * Requires knowledge of the underlying DOM API. **jQuery:** Pros: * Provides a simple and familiar API for working with DOM elements, making it easier to write readable code. * Offers additional features and methods beyond basic element manipulation. Cons: * Requires loading an external library, which can increase the overall size of the application. * May introduce overhead due to the library's functionality. **Other considerations:** * In this specific benchmark, the test case uses a simple HTML structure with only one element. As the complexity of the HTML increases, the jQuery approach might become less efficient due to its reliance on the DOM API and additional library features. * It's worth noting that in modern web development, using libraries like jQuery for basic DOM manipulation is generally discouraged in favor of vanilla JavaScript or other more lightweight alternatives. **Library:** In this benchmark, jQuery is used as a reference implementation. The `$(document).find(".test").addClass("new-class")` expression is the equivalent code for adding a class to an element using jQuery's `$()` function and its `find()` method. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark, as both approaches rely on standard DOM API methods.
Related benchmarks:
Updated 4/2018: Vanilla vs jQuery vs Zepto vs Umbrella vs Bliss JS Library Speed Test
This is a test benchmark
JS v JQ
spread vs for of
testthis
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?