Ok, it all sounds in order to me - someone want to file a ticket?
http://dev.jquery.com/newticket
--John
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, mike.helgeson <mike.helge...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> The YUI compressor does not seem complain about using the Function
> technique.
>
> (function(){
>
> function evaluate( data ){
> return Function("return "+( data ) )();
> };
>
> })();
>
> becomes...
>
> (function(){function A(B){return Function("return "+(B))()}})();
>
>
> On May 20, 9:06 am, John Resig <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Has anyone been able to figure out if YUIMin still behaves as you would
> > expect it to?
> >
> > --John
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> >
> > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, the reason eval is so slow is because of FireBug, it costed 17
> seconds
> > > with FireBug enabled while FireBug seems to do not affect Function
> execution
> > > (which makes Function against better than eval).
> >
> > > In any case, Function is faster or exactly fast as eval is, even in
> > > Internet Explorer, at least in my tests.
> >
> > > this is a truly simple readapted test case:
> >
> > > <!DOCTYPE html>
> > > <script type="text/javascript">
> > > portable = (function(msg, i, interval){
> > > function timeout(){
> > > alert(msg.join("\n"));
> > > msg = [];
> > > i = 0;
> > > };
> > > return {
> > > log:function(test){
> > > msg[i++] = test;
> > > clearTimeout(interval);
> > > interval = setTimeout(timeout, 100);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > })([], 0, 0);
> > > var count = 10000, o = null, i = 0, jsonString =
> > >
> '{"value":{"items":[{"x":1,"y":2,"z":3},{"x":1,"y":2,"z":3},{"x":1,"y":2,"z":3},{"x":1,"y":2,"z":3},{"x":1,"y":2,"z":3}]},"error":null}';
> > > var beginTime = new Date();
> > > for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ )
> > > o = eval( "(" + jsonString + ")" );
> > > portable.log( "eval:" + ( new Date() - beginTime ) );
> > > var beginTime = new Date();
> > > for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ )
> > > o = new Function( "return " + jsonString )();
> > > portable.log( "new Function:" + ( new Date() - beginTime ) );
> > > var beginTime = new Date();
> > > for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ )
> > > o = Function( "return " + jsonString )();
> > > portable.log( "Function:" + ( new Date() - beginTime ) );
> > > var beginTime = new Date();
> > > var callback = Function( "return " + jsonString );
> > > for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ )
> > > o = callback();
> > > portable.log( "precompiled Function:" + ( new Date() - beginTime ) );
> > > if(this.JSON){
> > > var beginTime = new Date();
> > > for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ )
> > > o = JSON.parse(jsonString);
> > > portable.log( "native:" + ( new Date() - beginTime ) );
> > > };
> > > </script>
> >
> > > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > > Regards
> >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> > > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> As I said, Function does not do scope resolution except the global one
> so
> > >> in my opinion should be always preferred for JSON evaluations. Firefox
> does
> > >> not care about implicit returned value plus brackets plus scope, it
> simply
> > >> create the anonimous function doing a syntax check and returns errors
> only
> > >> at call time so if there are no errors the precompiled funcion will be
> like
> > >> a manual one, time for parsing syntax is then one against every eval
> call.
> > >> To be fair, that bench make sense declaring the function once and
> simply
> > >> calling it inside the for to always return the same object.
> Unfortunately
> > >> this is not a real world case.
> >
> > >> On May 20, 2009 7:33 AM, "Michael Geary" <m...@mg.to> wrote:
> >
> > >> Function( 'return ' + data )() is also MUCH faster in Firefox than
> eval.
> >
> > >> In a test case of JSON data containing 1000 names and addresses (about
> > >> 112KB), eval() takes a full second to execute on my machine in Firefox
> 3. On
> > >> all other browsers (including IE!) it takes hardly any time at all.
> >
> > >> The Function version takes essentially no time in Firefox. (Didn't
> test it
> > >> in other browsers.)
> >
> > >> -Mike
> >
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >> *From:* jquery-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> jquery-...@googlegroups.com]
> > >> *On Behalf Of *John Resig
> > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:20 PM
> > >> *To:* jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
> > >> *Subject:* [jquery-dev] Re: window['eval']() in rhino
> >
> > >> > I don't remember the original discussion/change, off-hand. If YUIMin
> is
> > >> still able to generate an ...
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
