How many times did you run your tests? Are these averages? Also, did you try the tests on a non-Windows XP or Vista machine to get more accurate results? (At least for Firefox and Opera).
I don't doubt that pure DOM manipulation is going to be faster, but it's certainly surprising to see how much faster it is than any library. -- dz On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Gilles <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
