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: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 14:01 rf wrote: > 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 Nearly one. > > A search on my news server reveals exactly two hits. The two posts in this > thread. LOL. It's the same guy (gal?) over and over. They just keep changing their name to make it look like they are an army. > > 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. Yeah, I've never heard of most of these people who come in here crying about "trolling" in a group nobody is forcing them to read. > > 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. > > That's the most sensible thing I've heard all day. :)
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 14:05 Jake Jarvis wrote: > 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. > As I've mentioned numerous times. I use that when GG decides I've posted too many times in the last hour (or whatever). Used it a couple of times in other groups to thwart bans as well (until poor "Roger" got banned too). Is it your assertion that I am this top-posting crank? That's certainly not the case. More like they are trying to be funny by corrupting the alias. I didn't even catch it until now. :)
From: Garrett Smith on 10 Feb 2010 18:32 David Mark wrote: > Roja Gilwreathe wrote: [...] > "Ad hominem attacks" is another overused word that often serves only to > make the user sound like a laughingstock (see also troll). How so? -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 18:46 Garrett Smith wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Roja Gilwreathe wrote: > > [...] >> "Ad hominem attacks" is another overused word that often serves only to >> make the user sound like a laughingstock (see also troll). > Because it is typically tossed about to describe anybody the poster doesn't like. In general usage, it's got no real meaning at this point, other than to show that the user is clueless about the origins of the term. Technically speaking, most who cry "troll" are in fact trolling themselves (like this latest crank).
From: jdalton on 11 Feb 2010 12:27
David, > LOL. It's the same guy (gal?) over and over. They just keep changing > their name to make it look like they are an army. I not posting as anyone else. > 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. That is wrong. The majority of browsers I reported (18 of 23 results) do *not* have QSA. > This was ostensibly because the other > libraries had gone to great lengths to ensure their QSA tack-ons were > consistent cross-browser. I didn't say "great lengths to ensure", I said at least they attempted to put an effort into it. Here is what I found: (I am not counting the try-catch as a bug check because all have that) My Library QSA addon has 0 QSA bug checks YUI 3.0.0 has 0 QSA bug checks that I could find :( MooTools 1.2.4 doesn't use QSA Prototype 1.6.1 (next release they are switching to Sizzle) WebKit className issue line #3217 Context check line #3293 Sizzle 1.0 (Used in jQuery): WebKit className issue http://github.com/jeresig/sizzle/blob/master/sizzle.js#L894 Avoid QSA on non HTML elements http://github.com/jeresig/sizzle/blob/master/sizzle.js#L903 Avoid issues when .length of a nodeList maybe an element http://github.com/jeresig/sizzle/blob/master/sizzle.js#L724 jQuery 1.4.1 (in addition to the Sizzle checks) Avoids QSA for simple id selector line #121 Avoids QSA for simple tagName selector line #142 Dojo 1.4.0 Starting with combinator check line #9240 IE pseudos selector check line #9244 className case bug line #9246 Avoids `:contains` and `:checked` line #9255 Avoids attribute selector `|=` line #9256 Converts to a dojo.NodeList #9583 NWMatcher 1.2.1 (line numbers range from 233 - 302) className should be case-sensitive in quirksMode (draft spec) `:enabled` and `:disabled` bugs with hidden fields (Firefox 3.5 QSA bug) IE8 throws errors with some pseudos `:checked` bugs with checkbox fields (Opera 10beta3 bug) link bugs with hyperlinks matching (Firefox/Safari) Attribute bugs with isMap, checked, disabled, multiple, readonly, selected Avoid QSA for simple id, className and possibly tagName selectors Avoid issues when .length of a nodeList maybe an element line #1206 I am not debating the quality of there checks but I am saying they at least attempt to check for inconsistencies/bugs. I believe your Slickspeed results aren't very useful because it only averages the time it takes to execute a method call 4 times per test which results in a lot of useless 0ms returns. So I used a modified version of Slickspeed which tests the max number of executions a function can perform in a given time period (in this case 200ms to start, later after Richard's review, I bumped it to 400ms). At first I used a version of your My Library from your builder (just the dom+query module) and then later, after you mentioned your builder produced outdated code, I switched to the version from your download page. (both *without* your QSA addon because I take issue with it) To be fair I then posted results from a range of browsers (most did not support QSA) and marked your score with an asterisk. The results re-posted here for context. Win XP (mylib.js from your builder using just the DOM query modules) ----- IE 7.0.5730.11 32 51 21 39* 73 59 26 IE 6.0.2900.5122.xpsp_sp3.gdr.080814-1236 30 50 20 38* 75 59 26 IE 8.0.6001.18702 (Compatibility View) 56 91 33 72* 216 108 62 Opera 9.50 (build 10063) 160 150 55 68* 339 170 128 WinXP (using mylib-min.js from your download page) ----- Opera 9.25 49 81 29 40* 151 90 42 Opera 9.50 159 146 57 112* 347 173 123 Opera 9.64 127 127 47 98* 316 143 108 Opera 10.10 201 352 62 109* 554 426 368 Chrome 1.0.154.36 252 407 139 279* 849 476 448 Chrome 2.0.172.28 267 615 144 335* 1499 830 716 Chrome 3.0.195.21 350 946 161 114* 2160 1333 970 IE6 29 47 18 35* 69 60 24 IE8 (Compatibility View) 61 97 38 81* 234 117 64 Firefox 3.6 244 305 188 99* 922 354 318 OSX 10.4 -------- Safari 2.0.0 1 0 9 1* 10 5 0 Safari 2.0.4 2 0 2 3* 15 0 2 Safari 3.04 17 20 13 15* 54 24 16 Safari 3.1 177 302 84 124* 562 387 362 Firefox 2.0 7 12 7 7* 28 14 7 Richard Cornford then reviewed my Slickspeed internals and made some suggestions (none of which changed the overall result trend) As per Richards's review I increased the sample time from 200ms to 400ms and made it display the straight execution count in the results. IE8 (Compatibility Mode) 5,958 8,362 3,238 5,681* 17,768 8,630 3,499 Opera 9.25 7,675 13,137 4,688 6,599* 25,826 14,941 6,620 Opera 9.50 33,643 31,268 11,725 24,128* 71,395 36,086 27,150 Safari 3.0.4 2,715 2,561 2,333 2,325* 8,794 3,787 2,547 Out of the 23 results posted I believe 5 used QSA. In many of the results `My Library` was one of the slowest libs tested (though in some it was middle of the road or better) I apologize for any impression that I was trying to mislead people. I have added a note to the Slickspeed stating MyLib is without the QSA addon. I would like to try to keep the dialog from turning into a flame war and avoid name calling/personal attacks. (I certainly contributed to the first round of dialogs spiraling into flame bait and would like to avoid it again) I am not cheerleading any major framework and really only raised an issue with your results because of how abusive, warranted or not, I think you are toward other frameworks/developers. I hope my test results are useful to you and help you fine-tune your approach. |