Glen Lipka wrote:
This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is
totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery.
Speed of Development is most important. if I can finish my job faster
then the user will be happier. If they have to wait 1/10 of a second
longer, they will not be heart broken. These tests are geeky
comparisons of technical detail that is irrelevant to human beings.
It's like video card comparisons that talk about speed of polygonal
shading textures per billionth of a second.
Apple just redesigned their site. On the inside they use
Scriptaculous/Prorotype. Check http://www.apple.com/mac. Notice the
file size, 772k! That is humongous. Does it matter what the script
is at that point?
So with that said, although I do like jQuery small, I don't think it
makes a difference whether its 20k or 50k. In the tradeoff's, I think
you need to find out how much "major improvements in speed" will
really cost? Is it really 10k more? Can it be a plugin? I have no
idea. I am just saying, I am not concerned with file size up to 50k.
My only concern is about ease of use and maintainability. As long as
jQuery has that, then all these tests miss the point.
Glen
Agreed, I'm not that fussed because it's still plenty nippy and so much
simpler for a newbite such as myself.
Thats an obscene filesize for apples site! What percentage of people are
actually on broadband these days? Or do they just not care anymore...
- [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSui... Robert O'Rourke
-
