I did, and it doesn't quite match up to your times -- which could be due to machine differences or any number of reasons. Pure DOM was still significantly faster, but not as much as the numbers shown in your case.
This is why I asked for more details about the tests you ran. -- dz On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > if you want to try the test you can visit this page: > http://bill.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/ > > or create a local TaskSpeed implementation > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:19 PM, David Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
