jQuery vs. My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: joedev on 23 Jan 2010 19:58 On Jan 24, 7:09 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Matt Kruse wrote: > >>> With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well > >>> as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc > > >> That would conflict with any code that uses:- > > >> Element.prototype.myFunc = [...] > > > Yes. It will likely end up as MyElement, MyForm, MyImage, MyDocument, > > etc. > > > var myEl = MyElement('#test'); > > Or better myLib.getElement(...), as (structurally) suggested before? > +1 Please do use a namespace --Support http://wikileaks.org/
From: Scott Sauyet on 23 Jan 2010 20:05 On Jan 23, 4:12 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24/01/2010 4:17 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote: >> When I called your bluff, you tried to change the argument. Do you >> really think many people care how your code runs on ancient browsers >> in FF1? When's the last time you say that browser in your logs? > > IE 6 is 10 years old and my corporate clients still use it, and won't > upgrade any time soon, so ancient browsers are important. Oh yes, I always test with IE6. I did forget to post those results, because I didn't have it on the machine I used yesterday. 934 1105 1771 3825 1113. Obviously MooTools falls down a bit and Prototype even more. The rest were comparable. >> If you want to say that the difference in performance is mostly a non- >> issue, I will certainly agree with you. But you are the one who made >> a point of bragging about it, and then pointed your latest library >> against much older versions of the competition. > > I have colleagues who work for large development houses that *do* use > the "common" js libraries on a day-to-day basis. I learnt very early on > to not ask how their latest js project was going because of the violent > denunciation of whatever bug they had just discovered and were trying to > workaround. (I've been too "afraid" to ask why they don't drop using a > library). I think it's worth testing older libraries in various environments. What I objected to is the self-aggrandizing manner in which David Marks promoted the spped of his library, upgrading his library in the tests to the latest version, but leaving the other libraries with two- year old versions. You know he didn't expect anyone to notice. When I post some results he responds by saying that I'm testing the wrong thing. Either the browsers are too recent or the computer is too fast. It's nonsense, of course. -- Scott -- Scott
From: Andrew Poulos on 23 Jan 2010 21:35 On 24/01/2010 12:05 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote: > On Jan 23, 4:12 pm, Andrew Poulos<ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 24/01/2010 4:17 AM, Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> When I called your bluff, you tried to change the argument. Do you >>> really think many people care how your code runs on ancient browsers >>> in FF1? When's the last time you say that browser in your logs? >> >> IE 6 is 10 years old and my corporate clients still use it, and won't >> upgrade any time soon, so ancient browsers are important. > > Oh yes, I always test with IE6. I did forget to post those results, > because I didn't have it on the machine I used yesterday. > > 934 1105 1771 3825 1113. > > Obviously MooTools falls down a bit and Prototype even more. The rest > were comparable. By "falls down a bit" do you mean unsuited to the task? >>> If you want to say that the difference in performance is mostly a non- >>> issue, I will certainly agree with you. But you are the one who made >>> a point of bragging about it, and then pointed your latest library >>> against much older versions of the competition. >> >> I have colleagues who work for large development houses that *do* use >> the "common" js libraries on a day-to-day basis. I learnt very early on >> to not ask how their latest js project was going because of the violent >> denunciation of whatever bug they had just discovered and were trying to >> workaround. (I've been too "afraid" to ask why they don't drop using a >> library). > > I think it's worth testing older libraries in various environments. > What I objected to is the self-aggrandizing manner in which David "self-aggrandizing"? Why do you care about any perceived personality flaw in someone you most likely will never meet/know? Can't you just objectively comment on the quality of the work? > Marks promoted the speed of his library, upgrading his library in the > tests to the latest version, but leaving the other libraries with two- > year old versions. You know he didn't expect anyone to notice. I didn't get the feeling that he didn't expect anyone to notice. Quite the contrary, that everything was openly laid out before us. At any rate, haven't the other libraries been around for a "long" time? So shouldn't even a two year old version be an accurate representation of the quality of the coding involved? > When I post some results he responds by saying that I'm testing the > wrong thing. Either the browsers are too recent or the computer is > too fast. It's nonsense, of course. Perhaps you *are* testing the wrong thing. Sorry if I missed it but I didn't notice your defence of your claim. To repeat, the people that I know that use the "common" js libraries are unhappy with all of them. Andrew Poulos
From: Faisal Vali on 24 Jan 2010 11:19 On Jan 22, 3:47 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > 4. Take criticism better and scale back your ego. Related to the above. > For instance getting featured on Ajaxian was a huge opportunity to reach > a large and targeted audience. If your goal is to actually see the > library used, you getting virtually blacklisted from them was an > enormous blunder. > While few would dispute that David Mark's discourse should be more civil, Ajaxian blacklisting his work because of the nature of his discourse rather than the quality of his work raises far more disturbing issues about Ajaxian's integrity (to us consumers) than it could possibly raise about David Mark's attitude. The brunt of the criticism should be directed towards Ajaxian here. I for one was looking forward to that article. Faisal Vali Radiation Oncology Loyola
From: ace on 24 Jan 2010 16:47
David Mark wrote: > In fact, that's why my test page is actually better. It's the older, > slower, QSA-less browsers (and other agents) that will expose efficiency > problems. The new ones using QSA will all act about the same. As mine > is competitive even without QSA, it would seem to be the winner. ;) In other words, the time has run over you. Feel free to take a shovel and bury yourself somewhere in a backyard. |