|
|
Low Pro |
On 1/28/08, Peter <peter.kielt...@gmail.com> wrote: But yeah, back to the original point. If you do like Mootools and Cheers, -- aim: danwrong123
> ... I like jQuery, and I'd prefer to use it because of its adoption From looking at that there's not a huge amount in it. In my
> and support, but from this small subset of a test, it does not perform
> well at all. Reading the jQuery blog, they've taken on a developer to
> optimize their code, I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up
> with.
experience, since all the selector engines jumped up in performance a
while ago framework speed is not a problem. High performance is
normally achieved at application level. Doing things like using event
delegation, lazy evaluation and generally writing code in a way that
makes for the least amount of work possible is what really counts.
Even before the selector speed up it wasn't a huge problem - you just
needed to be careful with what selectors you used. However, I say
this from my experience. So although I work on a lot of pretty JS
heavy applications I've never felt the need to write a raytracer in JS
or something similar.
want to port Low Pro then that would be cool. It's already got a
class implementation which is most of what Low Pro JQ's code is so its
probably going to be very simple to do.
Dan Webb
http://www.danwebb.net
skype: danwrong