TaskSpeed results for My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Garrett Smith on 4 Feb 2010 11:09 Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > I love people keep thinking about how many cheats i could have added > to PureDOM ... Who thought that? I used native everything at the beginning and people > complained about the fact "obviously libraries have better selector > engines" ... > > I have nullified querySelectorAll on purpose (which does NOT produce a Where? > live object in any case, so all latest considerations about cached > live objects are superfluous adn nothing new, I have posted about this > stuff ages ago in WebReflection) and people keep thinking I am an > idiot, rather than simply remove that &&false which is clearly a > statement "nullifier" (as ||true is a statement "forcer"). > You love confusing people with code that appears broken? I'm trying to follow your response in response to RobG's post, which had some of good feedback. Your posting style breaks the discussion, so it's a struggle here, as a reader. It would have been much better if you had instead replied inline. > That was the easiest way to test both getSimplle and native method ... > but you guys are too clever here to get this, isn't it? > > About tricky code to speed up some appendChild and the BORING > challenge VS innerHTML (e.g. $("<ul class='fromcode'><li>one</ > li><li>two</li><li>three</li></ul>") ) > I don't think after a year of libraries still behind there's much more > to say about these topics. > > If you want to trick PureDOM convinced you can speed it up, well, you > have discovered HOT WATER!!! Good Stuff, Hu? > What? [...] -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Scott Sauyet on 4 Feb 2010 11:29 On Feb 4, 10:22 am, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I love people keep thinking about how many cheats i could have added > to PureDOM ... I used native everything at the beginning and people > complained about the fact "obviously libraries have better selector > engines" ... Whoa, hold on here a second! I don't think the criticism here is that harsh! I personally know nothing of the history of TaskSpeed, and nothing about WebReflections.js. There is an understandable concern when the libraries start to beat the pure DOM solutions, as it's assumed that since everything is built on top of the DOM tools, nothing should be any faster. > I have nullified querySelectorAll on purpose (which does NOT produce a > live object in any case, so all latest considerations about cached > live objects are superfluous adn nothing new, I have posted about this > stuff ages ago in WebReflection) and people keep thinking I am an > idiot, rather than simply remove that &&false which is clearly a > statement "nullifier" (as ||true is a statement "forcer"). > > That was the easiest way to test both getSimplle and native method ... > but you guys are too clever here to get this, isn't it? Well, a comment would have been nice... > About tricky code to speed up some appendChild and the BORING > challenge VS innerHTML (e.g. $("<ul class='fromcode'><li>one</ > li><li>two</li><li>three</li></ul>") ) > I don't think after a year of libraries still behind there's much more > to say about these topics. > > If you want to trick PureDOM convinced you can speed it up, well, you > have discovered HOT WATER!!! Good Stuff, Hu? I would have removed the &&false to test, but I don't want to be using a different version of PureDOM for any published tests. That would just muddy the waters. > [ ... ] Everybody else got it but this ML is still talking about PureDOM and > how badly it is etc etc ... well, use your best practices when > performances matter, and please stop wasting your time talking about > PureDOM or at least be decent enough to understand what is it and why > it's like that. Again, I think you're taking this too personally. First of all, in this thread there were only a handful of posts questioning the speed of PureDOM, and I haven't seen any other criticism of it in the few months I've been around. But secondly, when one of the libraries outperforms PureDOM, it does raise some awkward questions. > Best Regards, and thanks for asking before blaming Well, now I know who to ask, anyway. I've seen no URLs or email addresses in the TaskSpeed tests to use when asking questions. I'm very impressed with TaskSpeed. It's not ideal, but it's a decent framework for discussing speeds of things that actually matter to web developers. I'm glad it has a PureDOM implementation included, and I'm not overly bothered by those places where it's slower than some of the other libraries. But I am curious about why it might be slower. Cheers, -- Scott
From: Andrea Giammarchi on 4 Feb 2010 11:40 Rob analysis is a bit superficial. If there is an author, you ask to the author, you don't write sentences possibly wrong or pointless, no? If I don't understand something, or I think there is a typo, I don't necessary start the campaign against that developer and how many errors he wrote ... we are programmer, aren't we? if(1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&1&&false) is always false, ABC if(0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||0||true) is always true, ABC If there is a &&false at the end and this is confusing ... well, I guess we should consider to use jQuery, right? Let's move over ... if I create li nodes for each created ul it is because I am respecting the task, I AM NOT CHEATING If you write in a row, internally via innerHTML and jQuery, of course it's faster, isn't it? But that is the jQuery way, not the PureDOM one, which aim is to PERFORM TASK SPEED TASKS without cheating at all. Create 3 nodes and for each node append a text, that's what I have done. Create a node, append something, and clone it other two times ... that is NOT the task. Got my point? My little cousin could speed up PureDOM test, to obtain WHAT? We should understand why PureDOM is there and why it is like that ... there is a Dojo man behind TaskSpeed, and me talking with him and actually even fixing different things in every other framwork test implementation (I have spotted inconsistency about one test and proposed a fix for all). Why after a year or more people still don't get PureDOM is a mystery to me, this is why I get bored after the first line of comment. Is there a way to respect the task and perform better without cheating or use everything native where supported? I am ready to listen, but not the classic "here innerHTML would have been better, here cloneEverything would have speed up". Got my point? I hope so Regards
From: Andrea Giammarchi on 4 Feb 2010 11:45 > Cheers, > > -- Scott and whcih library outperform PureDOM? Aren't we talking about that post with my massive comment inside removed/filtered?
From: Andrea Giammarchi on 4 Feb 2010 11:55
And Finally: http://debuggable.com/posts/rightjs-1-5-6-8-times-faster-than-jquery:4b1fc009-1940-4d26-bdc6-0af2cbdd56cb#comment-4b2034e7-2b54-4037-8bed-289ccbdd56cb With explanation about PureDOM, a proper cheat via innerHTML (did not spend too much to create it tho) and the reason this thread is pointless, imho. |