I booted into two dedicated Windows partitions that have IE6 and IE7 installed respectively. This was on a Core 2 Duo 2.4, so YMMV.
-- dz On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
