to be honest no library is 100% efficient. its like a template that anyone can download. what counts as what you do with it and if suits your needs.
in some cases you would create your very own template if nothing suits your needs. so if you require 100% smoothness in everything you would require only the pieces of scripts that you are using and nothing more. regardless of the library you choose code that you do not use will always exist. say if you find a js lib where each function is its' own file. it would be efficient as you include only what you need. however it would take longer for all your scripts to load as the user would have to download each one. unfortunately i cannot fully answer your questions. On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Acaz Souza <acazso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, i´m from brazilian, my english is too bad. Sorry for bad > questions. > > But, ok ok, This depends on the computer hardware, engine of the > browser, how the plugin is written and more... > > But, another question, The algorithm of animation that has been made > in jquery to give the best quality in this regard? > > I want to say this, the jquery it was done with lower quality > animation to preserve the other strengths? (Or Not?) > > Because i have a project to build, and smoothing is very important to > me. I like jquery, but sometimes i see mootools more smooth than > jquery. > > And the other animations frameworks, anyone know if they are better in > this point? > > On 5 dez, 01:04, Dave Methvin <dave.meth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ok, I've used some code I had lying around and put dummy content in > there:http://www.tnt.be/bugs/jquery/moovsjquery/ > > > > > I actually don't really see a difference on my Ubuntu box (using FF > > > 3.6b4), but there's a huge difference on a colleague's G4 (OS X 10.4, > > > Firefox 3.5.5), so try to find a slow computer to test this on. > > > > Jonathan, thanks for doing the demo. Pretty nice demo, by the way! > > > > I tried it on my system, but it's a fast Dell notebook running Windows > > 7. The demo ran smoothly on Firefox 3.5, IE8, Opera 10, and Chrome 3. >
