Benchmark: test two of the same

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Tests:

1
jQuery(document).ready(function(){ jQuery('a').each(function() { if (jQuery(this).hasClass('hidden-xs')){ jQuery(this).attr('target', '_blank'); } else if(jQuery(this).hasClass('secondary-button-inverse')){ jQuery(this).attr('target', '_self'); } else if(jQuery(this).hasClass('button-inverse')){ jQuery(this).attr('target', '_blank'); } }); });
2
jQuery(document).ready(function(){ jQuery('a').each(function() { if (jQuery(this).hasClass('hidden-xs')){ jQuery(this).attr('target', '_blank'); } else if(jQuery(this).hasClass('secondary-button-inverse')){ jQuery(this).attr('target', '_self'); } else if(jQuery(this).hasClass('button-inverse')){ jQuery(this).attr('target', '_blank'); } }); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

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.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the execution speed of two identical JavaScript code snippets using jQuery to modify the `target` attribute of anchor tags (`<a>`) based on their classes.

**Options compared:**

There are two versions of the same code snippet being compared:

1. Version 1 (Test Name: "1"): Sets the target attribute to `_self` for anchors with class `secondary-button-inverse`.
2. Version 2 (Test Name: "2"): Sets the target attribute to `_blank` for all anchor tags (`hidden-xs`, `secondary-button-inverse`, and `button-inverse`) regardless of their values.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Version 1 (Test Name: "1")**:
	* Pros:
		+ More specific and efficient, as it only targets a single class.
		+ Less code duplication.
	* Cons:
		+ Might not cover all cases where the target attribute needs to be set for anchors with other classes.
2. **Version 2 (Test Name: "2")**:
	* Pros:
		+ Covers more cases, as it applies the change to all anchor tags with the specified classes.
	* Cons:
		+ More code duplication, which can lead to maintenance issues.

**Library and its purpose:**

The library being used is jQuery. It's a JavaScript library designed to simplify DOM manipulation and event handling in web applications. In this benchmark, jQuery is used to:

1. Select the `a` elements on the page.
2. Iterate over each element using `.each()`.
3. Check if an element has a specific class (e.g., `hidden-xs`, `secondary-button-inverse`, or `button-inverse`) and set its `target` attribute accordingly.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

In this benchmark, the following special JavaScript features/syntax are used:

1. **Template literals**: Used to define string literals with embedded expressions (`\r\njQuery(this).attr('target', '_blank');`).
2. **`.each()` method**: Used to iterate over a collection of elements.
3. **`jQuery(document).ready()`**: Used to execute code when the document is ready, ensuring that the DOM is fully loaded and parsed.

**Other alternatives:**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark without using jQuery or any other library, you might use:

1. Vanilla JavaScript (e.g., `document.querySelectorAll()`, `Array.prototype.forEach()`).
2. A different JavaScript library or framework (e.g., React, Angular, Vue.js).

However, using a library like jQuery can simplify the code and make it more readable, especially when working with complex DOM manipulations and event handling.

Keep in mind that benchmarking is all about identifying performance bottlenecks in your application. If you're concerned about optimizing this specific piece of code, consider using tools like `console.time()` or a JavaScript linter to analyze the execution time of different approaches.

Related benchmarks:

test two of the same (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

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):