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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
