Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
sadsjf lklkjsa
(version: 0)
s<
Comparing performance of:
jquery vs plain
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div id='test'></div>
Tests:
jquery
$('#test').html('bla').show();
plain
var el = document.getElementById('test'); el.innerHTML = 'bla'; el.style.display = 'block';
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jquery
plain
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 JSON and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases: 1. **"plain"**: This test case involves using plain JavaScript to select an element, set its inner HTML, and display it using `show()`. 2. **"jquery"**: This test case involves using the jQuery library to select an element, set its inner HTML, and display it. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * Plain JavaScript: The first option uses native JavaScript methods to manipulate the DOM. * jQuery: The second option uses the jQuery library to perform similar DOM manipulations. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Plain JavaScript:** Pros: * Native performance, as it doesn't rely on an external library. * Can be faster since there's no overhead from loading a library. * More control over the execution order and timing. Cons: * Requires more manual DOM manipulation, which can lead to errors if not done correctly. * May require additional setup or includes for specific browsers (e.g., modern browsers that don't support `show()`). **jQuery:** Pros: * Simplifies DOM manipulation by providing a set of methods with familiar names. * Provides better browser compatibility, as jQuery has built-in polyfills for older browsers. Cons: * Introduces overhead from loading the library, which can impact performance. * May lead to slower execution times due to the additional processing required by jQuery. **Library and Purpose** In the provided JSON, jQuery is used in the "jquery" test case. jQuery (pronounced "jquer-ee") is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and other common tasks. Its primary purpose is to make it easier for developers to interact with web pages. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** None of the provided test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax. **Other Considerations** When creating benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors like: * Browser compatibility: Ensure that your benchmark runs on a range of browsers and versions. * Execution order: Optimize execution order to minimize overhead from function calls and DOM manipulations. * Error handling: Implement robust error handling to ensure accurate results in case of errors or edge cases. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for comparing plain JavaScript and jQuery for DOM manipulation include: * VanillaJS (a modern, lightweight alternative to jQuery) * React or Vue.js (front-end frameworks that can be used for benchmarking) * Other libraries like Lodash or Ramda (which provide utility functions for DOM manipulation) Keep in mind that the choice of library or framework often depends on the specific project requirements and use cases.
Related benchmarks:
spread vs for of
performance js elements selector
JS selector functions
benchmark querySelector globally and specific
queryall vs classname
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?