TaskSpeed results for My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 10 Feb 2010 16:15 jdalton wrote: > Hi David, Again, this is a newsgroup. > >> Your excuse was that QSA is "buggy in all browsers" (or something like that) >> and the valiant "majors" have been feverishly working to combat these > I didn't say "feverishly working to combat", but they do put forth an > effort. > >> issues, but my add-on is oversimplified because it doesn't include the >> slew of workarounds present in theirs. > Yes it is overly simplified. You are completely ignorant to the issues > because you have failed to research them. > >> All I've seen is that your tests are full of holes. And there's not a >> single shred of evidence that the non-QSA browsers show mine as "one of >> the slowest". > Denial. I am curious how do you rationalize using a benchmarking tools > created by MooTools/Dojo devs when you bash them and their > frameworks ? > >> Quite the contrary, I run (relevant) tests on non-QSA >> browsers all the time and mine is always one of the fastest (usually the >> fastest by a large, even exponential margin), > Delusional. You aren't running my tests or tests that accurately show > anything. Would that be yesterday's tests or today's? Yesterday's were supposed to be "more accurate" than something in some way. Today they are garbage? What about tomorrow's? > >> I consider your "results" to be nothing more than random numbers. And >> given your track record of one half-truth (or outright lie) after > There is no half truths. I have been consistent. Anyone who can read English knows that is false. > >> another, they could very well be made up. > They aren't. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. You've proven yourself to be dishonest. > >> point (and hard to imagine anyone else does either, excluding your >> various alter ego sock puppets). > Check the IP addresses from the other posters non map to me. > >> And the others are all ill-equipped to handle non-QSA browsers as they >> can't even read attributes straight, even with browser sniffing in >> place. It's spelled f-o-l-l-y. Get it? > You are hung up on the few attribute bugs they have. You don't get it. > >>> Nothing is >>> rigged, you simply can't accept that you have *failed* to produce a >>> faster/more complete alternative. >> Not hardly. You simply can't admit that you don't know what you are >> doing. > Denial > >> And you need to stop focusing on queries anyway. >> How many times do I have to tell you that they >> are the least important issue at hand. > Then why do you promote your false performance ? Excuse you? There are two sets of tests on my site. I've said numerous times which I consider the more relevant. And I didn't invent or encourage acceptance of either. They are just there. > >> Trying for weeks to come up with a query-based test that proves my >> library is "one of the slowest" just makes you look like a jackass. > Weeks ? I just posted the Slickspeed tests yesterday. > >> And "more complete?" Are you kidding? Mine works on virtually >> anything, past, present and (very likely) future. > Delusional. > >> Theirs are software >> of the month clubs trying (and failing) to keep with just the latest >> versions of three or four browsers (in their default configurations). >> One is almost zero cost of ownership, the others are bottomless money >> pits. Get that? ;) > Mindless ranting. Ahh that creepy wink again. > You are not one to talk about creepy. You come off like an obsessed fan with your tribute page and seemingly endless fixation with my script. But I know you are simply trying to stop me from derailing whichever of the "majors" is your current favorite. Good luck with that!
From: jdalton on 10 Feb 2010 16:52 David, I guess people have access to both benchmarks (yours and mine) as well as the source for both. They can make up their own minds. I am not cheerleading for any major framework and don't have a fixation on your script. I just think you are overly critical towards others (endless nitpicking in code or posts, personal attacks, character assassination) when your own work is flawed. I wish you treated others in clj as good as you do in your own g-group (it shows you have the potential for pleasantness). Good luck.
From: Andrea Giammarchi on 11 Feb 2010 03:21 On Feb 10, 7:46 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Whatever. Is this a contest? TaskSpeed is a contest itself, so, is your one a question? What I am saying is that PureDOM, as baseline, is fine to me. A TaskSpeed test not focused on tasks as they are but focused only into "hacks to score" won't be useful, neither it will demonstrate anything. // PureHack dom.innerHTML = "whatever"; // some lib function $(dom, whatever) { dom.innerHTML = whatever; }; $(dom, "whatever"); ---------------------- is there any interest into above test? Consider the DOM a library itself, with methods to do things in a "linear" way to solve tasks. This is PureDOM, a baseline to compare DOM methods with libraries methods, and this makes sense to me while the precedent example test would be pointless. It's not about being defensive, it's just about understanding PureDOM column. Regards
From: jdalton on 11 Feb 2010 12:38
For those following along I have moved my discussion to "QSA--buggy in lots of browsers?" http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/7ee2e996c3fe952b#msg_b16895423bcb4731 |