On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 16:13 -0500, Felipe López Toledo wrote:
> Hi Bryan
>
> thanks for the links,
>
> >Interesting thing is that these demos really rev my
> >CPU. I have a centrino dual-core 2 GHz. Firefox chews up 70% of my
> >processor. However, when I stream Youtube Firefox also often chews
Hi Bryan
thanks for the links,
>Interesting thing is that these demos really rev my
>CPU. I have a centrino dual-core 2 GHz. Firefox chews up 70% of my
>processor. However, when I stream Youtube Firefox also often chews up
>50% of my processor so not sure if firefox is at fault or processing.js
I guess my brain was a tad outdated. So Sizzle is very cool, but
doesn't add anything if you're already using jQuery.
Hehe, hippies. And what are we?
2009/4/27 Ties Stuij :
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Bryan Berry wrote:
>> thanks for the reality check ;). Processing.js is probably overki
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Bryan Berry wrote:
> thanks for the reality check ;). Processing.js is probably overkill for
> the simple stuff we need to do. It is easy to get distracted w/
> high-quality animations when what we need are simple animations that are
> very responsive to the user.
thanks for the reality check ;). Processing.js is probably overkill for
the simple stuff we need to do. It is easy to get distracted w/
high-quality animations when what we need are simple animations that are
very responsive to the user.
I have fallen in love w/ the default jQuery selector engine.
Hey Subzero,
I just came across this blog post from John Resig, the creator of
jQuery. He kicked off a processing.js to replace flash for animations. I
am not really sure how it relates to jQuery
http://processingjs.org/
he also has a new project sizzle that is a CSS3 selector engine
http://sizz
6 matches
Mail list logo
