I understand better your point, but I think to an extend people use libraries for left side of the equation like you said, which is probably why library developers seems to concentrate more on that. Also I think JQuery is on the right track as the latest releases were about improving performance rather than adding some other cool stuff to it. Frankly I think it got enough cool stuff already, but I am looking forward to the require() addition tho.
The thing is tho, if a library doesn't support the cool stuff it will be seen as not up to date with the competition and it will lose some of its popularity. And most people who use those libraries are not always that worried about the performance side of things, often it is more developer that tend to worry about that and frankly by my work experience I can say even in professional environment there isn't enough of them that actually care. You still have tonnes of companies doing web application that will not behave well outside IE, no validation, no multibrowser support, no javascript off support etc.... Personally I like to have my little benchmark and try to improve speed and all (mostly in php still, in javascript I still got a lot to learn, too often wrong :p) Hopefully things will get better in the future now that IE8 is out (also the number of current IE6 users still alarming), it's still not perfect of course, but the few things I tried on it so far behave more like they are suppose to. Wouldn't be nice when you can just code thing the way they should and they would work everywhere. Imagine the footprint of everything without all the lines for IE and other weird borsers lol On Apr 2, 12:32 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > performances improvements and 44 seconds rather than 3 do not make sense, > imho. > > What I am saying is that we, as libraries developers, just put layers to > make IE behaves like every other cool browser. > This layer at the same time is slowing down IE speed, which has already the > worse JS engine ever, compared to others. > > So, the equation is simple: cool stuff : IE = performances : bad > > I am sure a lot of code is focused just on the left part of the equation > while should be nice, in my opinion, to consider more the right side when it > is possible. > > Better? > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gilles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Déjá vus are actually well explained in the latest New Scientist, very > > cool stuff :) > > > I think you might want to highlight JQuery 1.3.2 and DOM instead of > > JQuery 1.2.6 tho as the performanace improved dramatically since then. > > > But I just don't get what you are saying by saying that libraries (not > > talking about JQuery only, cos I am only a user) are not optimized for > > IE. Any libraries will have a huge amount of lines that are dedicated > > to IE, cos IE just can't use standards properly. Unless of course as > > usual I don't get it cos the translation doesn't go well lol > > > If it wasn't for IE the number of check in libraries would be smaller > > and libraries would probably be faster lol > > > On Apr 2, 11:05 am, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > dejavou ... I am not blaming any library and obviously it is not possible > > to > > > match manual tasks speed but Internet Explorer is not optimized at all, > > > that's the point. > > > > That TaskSpeed is performing truly common operation like remove, append, > > > prepend, before, after, creation, etc ... and results against other > > > libraries ( except for Prototype ) are clear in my blog post: > >http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2009/04/taskspeed-dom-vs-libraries.... > > > > Here a summary of Internet Explorer results: > > > > Internet Explorer 6 > > > ------------------------ > > > library | ms > > > ------------------------ > > > DOM *3966* > > > Dojo 1.2.3 22750 > > > plugd-a (Dojo) 24189 > > > Dojo 1.3.0 24249 > > > jQuery 1.3.2 44314 > > > MooTools 1.2.1 69346 > > > jQuery 1.2.6 *104407* > > > > Internet Explorer 7 > > > ------------------------ > > > library | ms > > > ------------------------ > > > DOM *612* > > > Dojo 1.2.3 3641 > > > plugd-a (Dojo) 3748 > > > Dojo 1.3.0 3861 > > > jQuery 1.3.2 5031 > > > MooTools 1.2.1 7658 > > > jQuery 1.2.6 *10468* > > > > Internet Explorer 8 > > > ------------------------ > > > library | ms > > > ------------------------ > > > DOM *499* > > > Dojo 1.3.0 2327 > > > plugd-a (Dojo) 2455 > > > Dojo 1.2.3 2922 > > > jQuery 1.3.2 3170 > > > MooTools 1.2.1 5876 > > > jQuery 1.2.6 *7049* > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Gilles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It would be good to see DOM speed results compare to other libraries > > > > and see which libraries comes the closest to it. But I would never > > > > expect any library to match it on all tests. But then again that > > > > TaskSpeed test only take into consideration few basics tests and not > > > > the overall performance of akll the functionalities within a library. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
