From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 12:45
On Jan 24, 9:56 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 9:35 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 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?
> > Possibly. It depends of course on the task. But it takes almost 4
> > seconds to run 40 queries on a 114KB HTML page. Three of the
> > libraries only take around 1 second for the same task. So whether
> > it's good enough for your task is up to you, but you should notice
> > that the other libraries are significantly faster here.
> >>> 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?
> > I don't give a damn about his personality. But both the style and the
> > content of his posts get to be noxious. In the few months I've been
> > reading he makes fairly outrageous claims for his own skill and
> > regularly castigate the other libraries, claiming that anything the
> > other libraries get right, they steal from him.
> > When I go to test the claims he has made, and post my results, I'm met
> > with insults.
> >>> 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.
> > But when challenged on the speed advantages he announced, he didn't
> > post a link to the speed test, nor did he post his results. He merely
> > makes these very strong, but non-specific claims.
> >> 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?
> > But it's not the quality of the coding that's under challenge here.
> > There should definitely be investigations here into that quality, but
> Defining "code quality" is a topic that is likely to result in flames.
> I did create one unofficial document here:-http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/review/code-guidelines.html
> There was much heated debate regarding the "don't modify objects you
> don't own." That document may need to be taken down, actually.
> The motivation for the document was bad code reviews. I wanted to
> facilitate better code reviews.
> Code quality matters. Bugs should be fixed before being pushed to
> production, or even given to QA.
> flexible and powerful language. It is easy to create tangled messes in
> > I think it's great that David is bringing another library into the
> > fray.
> David is not alone, he is just the most obstreperous. That's probably
> too kind a term to use.
> I too am building a library/framework. Features: IoC to create
> factories, AOP event system, dom abstraction layer, and some widgets. IT
> is all organized into modules. Ther is no query selector because the
> cost of using that just isn't worth it at this point. Native QSA might
> be a good option in 5 years when support is more widespread, but not for
> the time being.
> There is a ton of work that needs to be done on it. It is not easy find
> doing it all myself. Slowly.
> If you would like to donate your time provide criticism or feedback to
> the the code, I would certainly appreciate that very much. I won't call
> you a buffoon for doing that, but I reserve my right challenge the
> criticism if I feel it is wrong.
And who was called a buffoon for providing (sensible) criticism
(rather than obvious attempts to muddy the waters with mis-quotes,
misconceived ideas about unit testing with tests designed for other
designs, bad logic, etc.?)
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 12:46
On Feb 9, 8:31 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:20 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, for example, Resig hides his head in the sane, refusing to even
> > read this group.
> Well, that is a beautiful typo!
That's certainly what it was. :) He thinks if he can't see bugs,
they can't bite him. Of course...
From: Garrett Smith on 9 Feb 2010 13:11
David Mark wrote:
> On Jan 23, 9:35 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Then there is the outrageous "test-driven" development (as referenced
> by one of Resig's posts a couple of years back). What it translates
> to is a bunch of people who have no idea how to go about cross-browser
> development, using unit tests to shape their designs. It's
> programming by observation, not understanding.
You know, you don't have to embarrass yourself like that.
From: Scott Sauyet on 9 Feb 2010 13:20
On Feb 9, 12:30 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 8:05 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> That's complete bullshit.
I may be wrong about your motives or your expectations. But I am not
trying to convince anyone of something I don't believe to be true.
> I hadn't done anything to that page in
> years until you started focusing on it. I don't even consider it a
> particularly compelling test as running queries over and over is not
> standard practice for an application. You misconstrued that my
> comments about speed were strictly related to SlickSpeed.
I didn't start the focus on it. Your original message in this
discussion brought up the speed and suggested that people take your
speed test. Matt Kruse asked for your results, but you simply told
him to try it himself. That's when I added my own tests. This is
On Jan 22, 5:56 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
| Scott Sauyet wrote:
| > On Jan 22, 2:38 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
| >> Matt Kruse wrote:
| >>> David Mark wrote:
| >>>> And take a guess which is faster. Rather, don't guess but try
| >>>> Speed Test.
| >>> Have you? Will you post the results?
| >> Huh? The Speed Test on my site. I've ran it in everything from
| >> FF1 (and most in between). My Library kills its contemporaries
| >> further back you go, the larger the margin).
| > Are you referring to this?:
| > http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib-testspeed.html
At that time, the referenced page was a SlickSpeed test , although
it has since been changed to one that links to both SlickSpeed and
Please remember what I've said in this discussion: My Library performs
very well, and is among the faster ones in many of the tests I've
seen. But you've significantly oversold its speed in your original
and subsequent posts. My Library is not the undisputed fastest
library for SlickSpeed. That's all I've said, but I've given
significant backup to my words by posting up-to-date tests others can
run in their own environments.
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 13:29
On Feb 9, 1:11 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 9:35 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]> Then there is the outrageous "test-driven" development (as referenced
> > by one of Resig's posts a couple of years back). What it translates
> > to is a bunch of people who have no idea how to go about cross-browser
> > development, using unit tests to shape their designs. It's
> > programming by observation, not understanding.
> You know, you don't have to embarrass yourself like that.
Like what? My point is well-documented (and certainly not mine
alone). Where have you been for the last couple of years? Are you
saying that jQuery (and the like) are not patchwork quilts because of
their reliance on empirical observations, rather than understanding?
See jQuery's attr method for a start. They _obviously_ never
understood the decade-old issue of MSHTML attributes, so they've been
patching it little by little for years, based on tickets filed by
users. They could have (and certainly should have) done the required
research and work to start with. Would have saved a lot of time and
trouble (not to mention embarassment).
Then there is YUI converting null getAttribute results to empty
strings. Does that indicate understanding? Similarly, jQuery sets
"removed" attributes to empty strings because somebody noticed that
certain attributes were not being removed.
It's the same story over and over. Look at any module in any "major"
library and framework and you see the same sort of confused code
accompanied by the same sort of confused comments (often open-ended
questions rather than assertions).
There's no investigation, no solution and no learning, just patching
based on reports from the field. Software just doesn't work like
that. Seeing as cross-browser scripts constitute a very difficult
form of software development, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of
sense to use nonsensical methodology. The futile (asd predictable)
results have been apparent for years (to everyone it seems, escept the
self-designated browser Ninjas).