cheerio

I can't speak on the performance difference between libxml and cheerio, but jsdom seems to be way slower than cheerio.

This is already why the author did though; the original benchmark that he replied to used Cheerio vs.

Wot wot pip pip cheerio get the torch line's engaged eat some crisps there's a good chap.

The only way that Cheerio uses jQuery is by choosing its popular API to implement an interface to scraped pages in.

To my knowledge, Cheerio (which is great) does not depend on jQuery.

He already uses libxml, so cheerio or jsdom would be alternatives.

Faced with that or putting the money in my 401 or 529 - cheerio offending tooth when the time comes, it's been a pleasure chewing with you.

For instances where you don't need a full featured browser to get the data you need, Scraperjs using the Cheerio backend should be WAY faster than casper/phantom.

This is cheerio with node.js and extra bells.

My favorite part: would_you_mind { // Code here } actually_i_do_mind (Exception £e) { // Politely move on cheerio('Message'); } Clearly this is not a programming language for canadians...

I've not used Scraperjs yet, but cheerio is pretty great.

We had a basement full of a year's supply of cheerio's, because my parents calculated the amount of cereal they had to buy was still significantly cheaper than the ticket would have cost, at that point, for our yearly visit to the granparents in florida.

The readme says "Lightweight: no dependencies like jQuery, cheerio, or jsdom", I think the context is relevant for performance and/or size reasons.

It's true that cheerio it self have 5 direct dependencies and I'm not sure if that is what he refers to when using the word "lightweight".

Exactly "Cheerio implements a subset of core jQuery" it does not depend directly on jQuery as a dependency but it does use it.

If interested in trying a node alternative check out Cheerio.

On an average day, I use software/libraries called Grunt, Mocha, Dust, Cheerio...