[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
So I got good results, and jQuery has the fastest total time. My totals were: * Prototype 1.6rc1: 1187ms * MooTools 1.2dev-r1159: 570ms * jQuery 1.21: 365ms This was in Safari 2. Eric On Nov 1, 12:25 pm, prit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Thanks for giving it a go Eric. It's good to see positive results. :) Rey eferraiuolo wrote: So I got good results, and jQuery has the fastest total time. My totals were: * Prototype 1.6rc1: 1187ms * MooTools 1.2dev-r1159: 570ms * jQuery 1.21: 365ms This was in Safari 2. Eric On Nov 1, 12:25 pm, prit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Hey Hector, What the *initial* release of our tests (which was the motivation for SlickSpeed) did was to motivate all of the JS projects to improve the selector speeds. If you notice, some libraries really shine in FireFox because the use XPath for DOM selection while others, like jQuery, are optimized for IE, the dominant browser out there. For the immediate future, we're comfortable with the speed of the jQuery selector engine and prefer to focus on enhancing other areas of the project (eg: documentation jQuery UI). Rey... Pops wrote: Whoa! Rey, what a different between IE and FF. I am not interested in the half-truths in any of this, but rather what does the test show to improve jQuery, if anything? -- HLS On Nov 1, 1:59 pm, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
No problem Prit. We've just discussed this so many times and I thought it would be easier to ask that you do a search since there was ooo much discussion about this in the past. Hopefully, you ran it in IE. I really do want you to see the speed difference. Rey prit wrote: Thanks for the guidelines. I should have searched here and also google. But your comments helped me. :) On Nov 1, 4:03 pm, Pops [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whoa! Rey, what a different between IE and FF. I am not interested in the half-truths in any of this, but rather what does the test show to improve jQuery, if anything? -- HLS On Nov 1, 1:59 pm, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
hmmm.. I ran the test also and got that jQuery is the fastest final time (less is better) MooTools:5073ms Prototype:5740ms jQuery: 2915 ms On Nov 1, 6:25 pm, prit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Just for laughs I ran that test in Konqueror 3.5.6. EVERY SINGLE TEST FAILED for both MooTools and Prototype. Every single test passed for jQuery. And here I thought jQuery would have at least a few failures seeing as Konqueror isn't the best supported browser for these types of libraries.. :) S.. The end results say it best for me: final time (less is better) MooTools: 25 Prototype: 25 jQuery:630 Sseeing as every test failed for MooTools and Prototype, the 25 ms value has absolutely NO meaning at all. Yet less is better according to the test. So, the test is obviously flawed in some ways. From my perspective. I don't care at all if something takes 20ms vs 5ms. Because this time value is on the CLIENT machine, not the server or a reflection of network latency. Therefore, the obvious answer is that if it feels too slow, that client needs to upgrade their box. This test does not even come close to accurately testing times for a high volume network. It is ONLY testing the speeds of the different selectors ON THE CLIENT. And the effectiveness of those selectors (what's with the different number of matches for div:contains(CELIA) under firefox??). And with that, I'm done for the night (3:15am here, need sleep.. :) Shawn Rey Bango wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a website http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Rey, I did notice the speed difference in IE. Its amazing to see how mootools performs almost the same or even a little less faster than jQuery. I never imagined that the speed would vary this much with the browser. Thanks for pointing this out. :) Again I am a newbie, trying out all kinds of stuff (javascript libraries, plugins - i love jQuery, linux versions, bsd versions :) ). Have never been a hardcore programmer except on the mainframes. Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a website http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
prit wrote: But recently I noticed a website http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? jQuery isn't the fastest library (although it's getting faster all the time). The things to bear in mind: 1. It's the smallest library = pages download faster so even if the JS is a fraction of a second slower, you won't notice the difference 2. Code that uses jQuery is generally very concise = smaller pages = faster downloads 3. In real-world use the effects of most normal JS is negligible compared to the time it takes to download images, etc.
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
In addition to Rey's points, it's worth noting that the test is pretty flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the DOM structure of the test page is ridiculous and not at all similar to what you might see on a typical commercial site or blog. I should know, because I'm the one who put the test page together (the one the test is run against, not the test itself). I just grabbed a section of Act I, Scene 3 ,of Shakespeare's As You Like It and wrapped a bunch of divs around the dialogue, etc. Hardly representative. I think you might be able to customize the test to run on other pages, and I would recommend you do so on your own site if you want anything resembling a real-world scenario. Another problem, at least last time I checked, is the way it handles errors. In a way, it prefers errors by giving them a time somewhere between 0ms and 15ms, which would obviously benefit the particular library that fails. The slickspeed test has been discussed on a number of blogs as well, including a good dissection of it over at Jack Slocum's blog (back in February? April maybe?. Anyway, a quick Google search should make any reasonable person uneasy about relying on that test too much, especially in a single browser. --Karl _ Karl Swedberg www.englishrules.com www.learningjquery.com On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Rey Bango wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a website http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Karl, Very well put, someone would think you were a English teacher at one point. :) On 11/1/07, Karl Swedberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition to Rey's points, it's worth noting that the test is pretty flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the DOM structure of the test page is ridiculous and not at all similar to what you might see on a typical commercial site or blog. I should know, because I'm the one who put the test page together (the one the test is run against, not the test itself). I just grabbed a section of Act I, Scene 3 ,of Shakespeare's As You Like It and wrapped a bunch of divs around the dialogue, etc. Hardly representative. I think you might be able to customize the test to run on other pages, and I would recommend you do so on your own site if you want anything resembling a real-world scenario. Another problem, at least last time I checked, is the way it handles errors. In a way, it prefers errors by giving them a time somewhere between 0ms and 15ms, which would obviously benefit the particular library that fails. The slickspeed test has been discussed on a number of blogs as well, including a good dissection of it over at Jack Slocum's blog (back in February? April maybe?. Anyway, a quick Google search should make any reasonable person uneasy about relying on that test too much, especially in a single browser. --Karl _ Karl Swedberg www.englishrules.com www.learningjquery.com On Nov 1, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Rey Bango wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a website http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com http://www.benjaminsterling.com
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Whoa! Rey, what a different between IE and FF. I am not interested in the half-truths in any of this, but rather what does the test show to improve jQuery, if anything? -- HLS On Nov 1, 1:59 pm, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
[jQuery] Re: Slickspeed from Mootools
Thanks for the guidelines. I should have searched here and also google. But your comments helped me. :) On Nov 1, 4:03 pm, Pops [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whoa! Rey, what a different between IE and FF. I am not interested in the half-truths in any of this, but rather what does the test show to improve jQuery, if anything? -- HLS On Nov 1, 1:59 pm, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Prit, Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last week, I posted a response to this. Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally different results. My post goes into detail about that as well. Thanks, Rey... prit wrote: I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins available. But recently I noticed a websitehttp://mootools.net/slickspeed/which compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery). Does anybody have comments on this ? Thanks, Prit
