Those times are averages and I performed the test 5 times for each browser.
I would like to know if you used IE tester ( my choice ) rather than Multiple IE On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM, David Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
