Benchmark: jQuery addClass vs classList.add without quering

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="el"></div>

Script Preparation code:

document.getElementById("el").classList.remove("test");
jsObj = document.getElementById("el");
jQueryObj = $("#el")

Tests:

jQuery addClass
jQueryObj.addClass("test");
Javascript classList.add
jsObj.classList.add("test");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery addClass
Javascript classList.add

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 what's being tested on the provided JSON data.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to adding a class to an HTML element without querying:

1. **jQuery addClass**: Using jQuery's `addClass()` method to dynamically add a class to an element.
2. **JavaScript `classList.add()`**: Directly using the `classList` property of an HTML element in JavaScript to add a class.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

* **Option 1:** jQuery's `addClass()` method
* **Option 2:** Native JavaScript `classList.add()` method

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

**jQuery's `addClass()` Method:**

Pros:

* Widely supported and well-documented
* Provides a convenient way to dynamically add classes to elements
* Often used in web development projects due to its popularity

Cons:

* Adds an extra layer of complexity to the codebase, as it requires including jQuery
* Can be slower than native JavaScript approaches due to the overhead of the library

**JavaScript `classList.add()` Method:**

Pros:

* Native to HTML5 and doesn't require any external libraries
* Faster and more lightweight compared to jQuery's approach
* More efficient for large-scale applications or projects with specific performance requirements

Cons:

* Requires a modern browser that supports HTML5, which may not be the case in older browsers
* May require additional code to handle fallbacks for older browsers

**Library Used:**

The benchmark uses jQuery library version 3.2.1.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

None mentioned.

Now, let's look at the individual test cases:

**Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **jQuery addClass**: Tests the performance of adding a class using jQuery's `addClass()` method.
2. **JavaScript `classList.add()`**: Tests the performance of adding a class directly using the native JavaScript `classList.add()` method.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you need to measure other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using CSS classes instead of JavaScript methods
* Comparing different caching strategies for repeated additions (e.g., caching in jQuery vs. native JavaScript)
* Measuring performance with other libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular)

Keep in mind that the benchmark measures performance, so you may want to consider factors like code readability, maintainability, and scalability when choosing alternative approaches.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery addClass vs classList.add without quering (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery addClass vs Javascript classList.add

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery addClass

Javascript classList.add

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):