Message from discussion
Prototype + lowpro vs. JQuery
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fa755183-ae28-4664-b727-f73480771444@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.195.15 with SMTP id s15mr624424anf.26.1201891948562; Fri,
01 Feb 2008 10:52:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5b3e279f0802011015i1f4469bbj84152fb18fd550c@mail.gmail.com>
X-IP: 72.0.160.79
References: <102c1a64-c792-46f5-95d0-202ce9fdbe3c@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
<5b3e279f0801280253l624c333avfc9f8d128f7055ff@mail.gmail.com>
<d667e999-d057-46a2-868f-236240f24d05@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
<5b3e279f0801280727r2a307962mf6955a96d12ca0bf@mail.gmail.com>
<f58d8dcb0801301555t268f7fa0gcc7438856abaea49@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801301631s159a4398hec1c474b1bf6f745@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801301646i209499anbf3be3790bc3163d@mail.gmail.com>
<706acb90-19c8-4dc1-a05d-bdb87d568484@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
<d23e9479-6432-4351-af7a-6938b8adfaf6@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
<20b2f44d-7b82-4796-87a0-6dda37350908@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<5b3e279f0802011015i1f4469bbj84152fb18fd550c@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11)
Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: Prototype + lowpro vs. JQuery
From: timothytoe <timothy...@gmail.com>
To: Low Pro <low-pro@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Since all the libraries jumped in speed in that area its just simply not been a problem for me anymore.
It's not a problem for me, either. Very little time is spent in the
selectors. I was just impressed. jQuery is way behind in 3 browsers.
Interestingly, it is much better in IE, which I suppose is where you
want to put the work, since IE is so slow.
--T
On Feb 1, 10:15 am, "Dan Webb" <d...@danwebb.net> wrote:
> On 2/1/08, timothytoe <timothy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow. MooTools selectors are fast!
>
> Yeah? last time I looked there wasn't much in it at all. Since all
> the libraries jumped in speed in that area its just simply not been a
> problem for me anymore. More performance anywhere is good I suppose
> but its not something I really think needs much more development in
> libraries at this time.
>
> --
> Dan Webbhttp://www.danwebb.net
>
> aim: danwrong123
|
