A lot is being made of how small jQ is. From the quick check I did, jQ compressed is 5k smaller than Prototype, and MooTools with a quick selection of the functions that seem to be in jQ was 27k, only 10k more than jQ. Considering the library is typically downloaded once and then cached, 5-10k is negligible.
File size is important, but not when we're already down in the single digits for differences. Even low double digit difference aren't that significant. At this range of difference the only reason file size makes a difference is perhaps in understanding/reading the library code -- I suspect that's not something that many people do anyway. What is important is the perception of things like speed tests. People will make a library decision by eliminating the slower running, larger sized, libraries, and will deifniately steer clear of libraries that seem to fail tests. If correcting and improving those things adds a few bytes, then jQ is foimproved. As others have said, 'soft-factors' like ease of use, maintainability, documentation (and ability to find and access the documentation), and community are the keys. However, being at the bottom of the pile in speed, file size, etc, will form a barrier of entry that may override the 'soft-factors'. ~ ~ Dave On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:08:25 -0700, "Glen Lipka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > On 6/12/07, Robert O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Rey Bango wrote: >> > >> > Hi Robert, >> > >> > Thats precisely the reason that its slower. We continue to work on >> > providing the most comprehensive functionality in the smallest >> > package. This is one of the drawbacks of that approach. >> > >> > Rey... >> > >> > Robert O'Rourke wrote: >> > > Is Jquery slower because it's more compact then? ie. better for > light >> >> usage? >> >> I much prefer the syntax and the community around jquery. I never got >> >> any helpful responses from anyone on the mootools forum when I was >> >> using that library. >> > >> > >> > >> Righto, cheers Rey. >> I'm definitely sticking with jquery as a tool of choice but I wonder, >> seeing as how mootools is modular couldn't someone just take that >> selector code snippet and write a plugin to make it spit out the jquery >> object? >> >> >> Rob >> > >
