Message from discussion
Prototype + lowpro vs. JQuery
Received: by 10.35.37.18 with SMTP id p18mr8404513pyj.6.1201534043972;
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <d...@danwebb.net>
Received: from rn-out-0102.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.185])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x46si117844pyg.3.2008.01.28.07.27.23;
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.233.170.185 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of d...@danwebb.net) client-ip=64.233.170.185;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.233.170.185 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of d...@danwebb.net) smtp.mail=...@danwebb.net
Received: by rn-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id e13so101989rng.12
for <low-pro@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.153.19 with SMTP id a19mr2153598ybe.107.1201534043539;
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.181.7 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5b3e279f0801280727r2a307962mf6955a96d12ca0bf@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:27:23 +0000
From: "Dan Webb" <d...@danwebb.net>
To: low-pro@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Prototype + lowpro vs. JQuery
In-Reply-To: <d667e999-d057-46a2-868f-236240f24d05@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <102c1a64-c792-46f5-95d0-202ce9fdbe3c@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
<f58d8dcb0801211358w51dadccdgc838fb1a6abd11e6@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801251922g20060bfbxbf536db9cb41d802@mail.gmail.com>
<f58d8dcb0801251938r688da9fex9992160b1b1ff195@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801260204o7e8ecb37qd6c994c071274fad@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801260630i58a84ef2u336f161f17d78ab6@mail.gmail.com>
<7438eebe0801261609g59af8c07hbe6f6e59256e0550@mail.gmail.com>
<b10d3fec-14ec-4eda-a57c-c82af44cc998@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
<5b3e279f0801280253l624c333avfc9f8d128f7055ff@mail.gmail.com>
<d667e999-d057-46a2-868f-236240f24...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
On 1/28/08, Peter <peter.kielt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... I like jQuery, and I'd prefer to use it because of its adoption
> 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.
From looking at that there's not a huge amount in it. In my
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.
But yeah, back to the original point. If you do like Mootools and
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.
Cheers,
--
Dan Webb
http://www.danwebb.net
aim: danwrong123
skype: danwrong
|
