jQuery vs. My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Andrew Poulos on 23 Jan 2010 05:23 On 23/01/2010 7:33 AM, Ivan Marsh wrote: > David Mark wrote: > >> Ivan Marsh wrote: >>> David Mark wrote: >>> >>>> Having just read a post about jQuery vs. My Library, I think I need to >>>> dispel some misunderstandings. >> >>> >>> Having just made up a post about jQuery vs. your crappy, unknown, >>> untested software you will now spam the newsgroups. >> >> What are you, stupid? Matt Kruse posted it _here_ today (or late last >> night). And no, I'm not posting a link. It's too soon. :) > > Stupid... no. You do realize everything you post here can be Googled and > read even months after you post it right? > > Don't need to elaborate on what I've said when it's all been done for me: > > "Someone is critical of a widely used library and at the same time promoting > their own library? Call me cynical, but given the inherent conflict of > interest I'd look for another opinion or 2 before taking their word as the > definitive answer." I won't call you cynical but tell me why won't you refute "facts" have been presented, or support your claims, rather that post a comment about a personality? For example, can you point out how "My Library" is crappy, that is have you found flaws in the scripting within "My Library"? The valid criticism of so-called "widely used libraries" began long before any so-called "promotion" of "My Library". I consider that comment to be disingenuous. Andrew Poulos
From: joedev on 23 Jan 2010 08:17 Hi, Thanks for having this discussion :) Dave, think you could implement the tests for taskspeed as well? http://yuilibrary.com/~msweeney/yui-tests/taskspeed/# could be a good starting point. Thank, Joe
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 09:23 On Jan 23, 8:17 am, joedev <joe.d.develo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for having this discussion :) > > Dave, > think you could implement the tests for taskspeed as well?http://yuilibrary.com/~msweeney/yui-tests/taskspeed/# > could be a good starting point. Already on that. Er, at least for something called TaskSpeed. I thought it was Dojo's thing (Peter Higgins?) Whatever. It will be up shortly. Results indicate that "pure DOM" is not much faster than My Library (for reasons that should be obvious). ;)
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 09:31 On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 9:36 pm, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > On Jan 23, 11:35 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Test/slickspeed/2010-01-22a/ > >> http://scott.sauyet.com/Javascript/Test/slickspeed/2010-01-22b/ > > > I ran the tests on iPhone - they seem to work OK, but for some reason > > the results are set a huge distance down the page so it takes several > > minutes to scroll to them. Can you fix that please? The result tables > > appear briefly just after the text, but then are shifted so it appears > > to be something to do with the default CSS being altered by script. > > This is not something I can comfortably fix. The slickspeed tests are > maintained by the MooTools team. The original test is here: > > http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ So what? Fix the one you copied to your server.
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 09:40
On Jan 22, 10:42 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 8:59 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Scott Sauyet wrote: > >> Or -- excuse me, maybe I misunderstood -- did you > >> perhaps mean to imply that My Library is the lobotomized script? > > > Obviously not. But you might want to consider one the way you are going > > here. ;) Did you hear nothing Richard told you about speed tests? > > Yes, Richard is right that performance testing on the most powerful > machines is not the right way to do micro-benchmarking. And isn't that exactly what you did? See the problem? > But for > comparisons of libraries, the point is to test their relative speeds > in whatever environments you care about. Uh, no. Let me try to put this kindly. You are an idiot. They are all about the same in the one fast PC you tested. That's even with mine _not_ using QSA. So those results don't matter at all as they won't affect the users. On the slower PC's and in browsers without QSA, it wasn't even a horse race. That predicts what mobile devices and other lesser environements will do. So it doesn't really matter what _you_ care about, does it? And if you are so stupid as to think testing QSA wrappers means anything, then I can't help you. Hint: they'll all be about the same, so the results don't matter. You have to test what these same libraries will do everywhere else (e.g. without QSA). That's where the issues lie. ;) > Perhaps for you, testing > Firefox 1 on an eight-year old machine is relevant.] You still don't get it. I tested it in the latest Chrome on that same machine (and in IE8 in both modes). I posted those results too, but perhaps you are cherry-picking your arguments. Another person posted a whole slew of tests on newer machines (and at least one phone). You didn't find those results relevant either? You just want to cling to the idea that in a newer machine with QSA, there is an imperceptible advantage to the libraries that foolishly rushed to insert QSA. Do you not understand why they rushed into something stupid for no palpable benefit at all? Apparently not as that would undermine your "argument" completely. > I don't find it > so, myself. See above, genius. |