On May 30, 1:09 pm, Sean Kinsey <oyv...@kinsey.no> wrote: > mandag 30. mai 2011 kl. 13:37:01 UTC+2 skrev zedshaws_eviltwin følgende: > > > > > The following I believe conforms to the goal as stated on > > > > jsmentors.com: "Review your article on JavaScript topic" > > > > To be honest - I don't see how the 'everything is a string' issue relates > > to > > > the how Ext4 uses the 'class' name to specify inheritance. This is a > > common > > > pattern shared among many libraries. > > > And what if all those libraries' implementations are needlessly slow? > > Did you see the (admittedly crude) benchmark at the bottom of the post > > on the ExtJS forum? Using the string instead of the object/"class" > > reference definitely seems slower. So what are the ostensible > > benefits of using a string instead, and can the performance be improved > > I did see them, and the benchmark has little value. The benchmark is for > creating objects, and extending classes is not an operation you would run 10 > 000 times in an app, maybe you would do it 5 or 10 times.
Yes well as I said the "benchmarks" were crude. Note though that Observable is almost certainly the most lightweight Ext-specific object you can create. > When creating new instances you are free to use the constructor instead of > `Ext.create` and probably should, but I doubt that you in most application > would notice any difference. As of the current version of ExtJS 4 you are correct about being "free to use the constructor instead of Ext.create". But considering that ExtJS 4 is not backward compatible with ExtJS 3, I don't with absolute certainty trust that to be the case by, say, ExtJS 5 -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@jsmentors.com/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/jsmentors@googlegroups.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jsmentors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
