Well, a (web) developer should give user experience priority to those two,
but as you mentioned in my case, which is about a smaller group of elements,
it probably won't make any difference. However, I'm grateful of the hints,
including the improvement in version 1.2.6 which I had no idea of, since
this might be of use in much larger projects of mine.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Josh Nathanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> You are sacrificing a small bit of performance for a world of easier code
> development and maintenance. In nearly all cases it's a worthwhile trade.
>
> If you had 1000 or more divs you'd probably not want to use each() to bind
> the handlers, but for any reasonably small number of elements, the
> performance hit is ok. Plus, binding speed has been improved in jQuery
> 1.2.6.
>
> -- Josh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Isaak Malik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:56 PM
> *Subject:* [jQuery] jQuery.each() or element event triggers?
>
> Dear list,
>
> I'm not really into the code of the jQuery core so I'm not sure of how
> jQuery.each() works, but I'm wondering: since jQuery.each() loops through
> every element that matches the given selector is my logics right that is it
> better performance wise to use static element event trigger instead of using
> the each() method on all the elements?
>
> An example for the simple-minded:
>
> $('div').each(function(){$(this).click(function(){alert('You clicked me: '
> + this.id + '!')})})
>
> or
>
> <div id='blabla1' onclick="alert('You clicked me: ' + this.id +
> '!')"></div>
> <div id='blabla2' onclick="alert('You clicked me: ' + this.id +
> '!')"></div>
> <div id='blabla3' onclick="alert('You clicked me: ' + this.id +
> '!')"></div>
>
> ?
>
> In most cases it does take more characters for the same functionality but
> what are the differences in performance?
>
> Kind regards,
> --
> Isaak Malik
> Web Developer
>
>
--
Isaak Malik
Web Developer
