you have a faster machine then, plus proper installation. Can you provide your results?
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM, David Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > Otherwise, I also tested on Firefox and Safari on OS X where there are > (I think) more accurate timers. > > -- dz > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM, David Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
