QSA--buggy in lots of browsers?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Java Lead with GUI & SWT | CA | 10+ months
Next: Presentation of a new native JavaScript database
From: Jake Jarvis on 10 Feb 2010 07:55 On 10.02.2010 13:36, wrote rf: > Jake Jarvis wrote: >> On 10.02.2010 12:49, wrote rf: >>> Roja Gilwreathe wrote: >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Sounds familiar. > > Not here. > >>>> Would >>> >>> Gee, another top post, against all the rules of this newsgroup. >>> >>> Obviously not a regular reader. Just a drop in troll angry that is >>> favourite >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> I would actually bet on the opposite, see above. > > A search for the word Gilwreathe in google groups reveals zero hits > > A search on my news server reveals exactly two hits. The two posts in this > thread. > > A general search for Gilwreathe on the web returns exactly one hit, oddly > enough a chinese "lets copy usenet" site that reveals my first post in this > thred. > > No, not familar at all. > > I don't care who this dipstick is, I'm on Davids side. Lets get rid of these > stupid "libraries" and replace them with code that actually works. > > "Roger Gilreath" is a google groups alias of DM, been mentioned in a thread or two here, and I just assume "Roja" knows that as well. -- Jake Jarvis
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 13:36 Roja Gilwreathe wrote: > It is completely disingenuous for you to assert that you never flame > or act immaturely on this newsgroup. This thread was a completely un- > instigated set of potshots against jQuery just to make your own ideas > and library sound great and wonderful. Actually, it couldn't have been more instigated. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/910da4771b1fc832# There was a bogus test posted that excluded my QSA add-on (without noting the fact) and then asserted My Library was "one of the slowest" because QSA out-performed it. This was ostensibly because the other libraries had gone to great lengths to ensure their QSA tack-ons were consistent cross-browser. :) > Of course, this is standard > operating procedure on this alleged 'newsgroup,' which devolved long > ago into your personal dumping ground for whichever axe you feel like > grinding at the moment. No. Like the others who refer to any opinion they don't like as "trolling", you seem to be mixed up about how discussion groups work. If you want to talk "dumping grounds", how about jQuery? Now that's a dump. ;) > > You should have figured out a long time ago that relevance goes hand > in hand with manners. LOL. You feel my review of "Sizzle" was in bad taste? Why? Because you use it and now can't sleep at night? I know unwelcome epiphanies are unwelcome. But that doesn't mean you have to come in here and insult everybody. Seems like bad manners to me. > You may be a damn clever JS developer, but no > one, I assure you, no one, thinks of you as anything more than a forum > troll with severe anger and jealousy issues. There it is! You don't seem to know what "troll" means. Oh, and the hat trick with "anger" and "jealousy". I assure you I am not angry about jQuery's follies (except when they get in the way of my Web browsing). And no, I am certainly not jealous. What is there to be jealous of? And please don't top-post. It screws up the context of the discussion. Thanks! > > On Feb 10, 1:12 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> Having recently added an experimental QSA add-on for My Library, I have >>> been warned that QSA is a bear cross-browser. I don't doubt that, but >>> the other assertion was that the "major" libraries have it beat (likely >>> in the same way they "beat" DOM traversal). >>> I suppose to determine if it is buggy, you have to have a baseline that >>> is not buggy. So I suspected that some of the "buggy" behavior and >>> accompanying workarounds would be mystical incantations. >>> The querying in jQuery 1.41 (for example), uses an oddly named variable >>> called "Zizzle" to abstract the two layers (QSA and some really >>> off-the-wall and error-filled DOM traversal). >> Typo. "Sizzle" of course. >> >> [...] >> >> >> >>> Cargo cult. There's no circular reference to break here. I used to do >>> the same thing, which is likely not a coincidence. ;) >> And, of course, it exits early if it spots that one quirk. I'm sure >> Resig would say that the memory issue is only in IE and the quirk is >> only in Safari, so it's all good. ;) >
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 13:39 john wrote: > On 09 Feb 11:46 PM, David Mark wrote: >> Having recently added an experimental QSA add-on for My Library, I have >> been warned that QSA is a bear cross-browser. > > i've been testing both querySelector and querySelectorAll recently and > the results are pretty much what you'd expect. the following from > IE8/JScript 5.8 which all complain about "Invalid argument." where as > Safari 4, Firefox 3.6 and Opera 10.10 all agree (mostly) about the results: Sure. IE8 won't query on some selectors, so you have to wrap the call in a try-catch and fall back to DOM traversal or XPath. I assume that at least some of them fail because IE doesn't support the selectors in CSS either.
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 13:43 slebetman wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, Roja Gilwreathe <rojagilwrea...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> This thread was a completely un- >> instigated set of potshots against jQuery just to make your own ideas >> and library sound great and wonderful. > > Wow, pointing out that buggy code is buggy is taking potshots? I > thought that was how opensource (and just plain old good academic > discussion) was supposed to work. That's what I thought too. There seems to be a huge population of people out there who have never used Usenet and think that anything they disagree with is "trolling" (the most over-used word on the Internet). For them, forums are encounter groups (or something other than academic duscussion). > >> Of course, this is standard >> operating procedure on this alleged 'newsgroup,' which devolved long >> ago into your personal dumping ground for whichever axe you feel like >> grinding at the moment. > > To me, open, honest criticism of code is excellent policy. If you > can't stand honesty then it's your loss. Honesty is always valuable > regardless of weather or not I agree with the idea (and I often find > myself disagreeing with David). You troll. Stop trolling! :) > >> You should have figured out a long time ago that relevance goes hand >> in hand with manners. > > Manners have little to do with how well code is written. I'd much > prefer code that is as bug-free as possible to code written by polite > people. After all, I'm not aiming to be David Mark's or John Resig's > friend. I just want to use the code. The former rather than the latter I hope. ;) > > Criticisms like Davids is extremely useful because there are faults > pointed out in his posts that are not acknowledged on jQuery's bug > tracker because its developers don't consider them to be bugs. Or the documentation. Do they stipulate that you can't use quirks mode in there? :) > >> You may be a damn clever JS developer, but no >> one, I assure you, no one, thinks of you as anything more than a forum >> troll with severe anger and jealousy issues. >> <snipped the rest> > > Well.. definitely not no one unless your universe consist entirely of > jQuery fanboys. > Such a (parallel) universe seems to exist (and occasionally collides with this one). :)
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 13:58
rf wrote: > Roja Gilwreathe wrote: >> Would > > Gee, another top post, against all the rules of this newsgroup. > > Obviously not a regular reader. Just a drop in troll angry that is favourite > library is being exposed as totally flawed. > Yes, that is an appropriate use of the word (troll). Take note, Roja. |