TaskSpeed results for My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: jdalton on 9 Feb 2010 15:26 Hi David, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." > You have a very child-like view of this. If I decide (as I did) to > _not_ allow bizarre markup (e.g. names and ID's that are the same for > different elements), that is my design choice. Denial (bugs were not related to multiple identical IDs) > You aren't following (and are clearly out of that loop). Denial > See above. What you see as a bug may not be a bug at all. True, I have stated some may not be bugs, but a lot are valid bugs in your code. > That's a completely worthless statement. Denial > And you know it is patently > untrue if you know the first thing about the DOM (and have read any of > their DOM-level code). Denial > That's complete fiction. I've got almost 4000 posts here and maybe > two come from a (well-advertised) alias, due to Google's idiotic > posting limits. Please try to pay attention. Denial, majority of your posts are rants and you reply to yourself regularly in your g-group (alias optional). > You talk about nothing but David Mark, with a few generalizations > about CSS selector engines thrown in. That's worthless noise by any > standard in a technical discussion group. Classic David Mark > Another worthless generalization. All things relative, it's far more > solid than anything out there. Denial > You really are a disingenuous idiot. Classic David Mark > I should try a modified version of SlickSpeed? Why? Because 0ms results are almost worthless. It's better to see how many executions can happen in a given time period. > According to whatever nonsensical theory you have come up with about > CSS selector engines (which are a stupid idea to begin with). Your approach is slow, so of course, the entire idea it's based on has to be stupid. Classic David Mark. > I haven't tried your link. Is that a joke, or did you really create a > tribute page? You've clearly got too much time on your hands Pot calling kettle. Your spamming, ranting, and harassment has reached new levels since you were relieved from SitePen.
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 15:36 On Feb 9, 2:16 pm, jdalton <john.david.dal...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > > You should try a modified form of SlickSpeed that test max executions > per ms, instead of 3 or so calls per test. This gives a more accurate > indication of performance. You will find that your library is actually > one of the slowest. Example:http://davidmissedthemark.com/slickspeed/ > Hell, why not? FF1:- 12 14 9 11* 33 17 9 *Mine Chrome:- 90 155 48 28* 646 252 160 *Mine Oh, what a shock, mine is _fastest_. Does that mean _slowest_ in your language? And, of course, these tests must be run multiple times in a variety of environments to indicate anything of substance. Still, it sure doesn't look like "one of the slowest" from the early returns. ;)
From: jdalton on 9 Feb 2010 15:50 Hi David, Heh, You have it backwards (larger number is better), smaller is worse, that means your methods executed slower than anyone else. Congratulations.
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 15:57 On Feb 9, 3:26 pm, jdalton <john.david.dal...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial > "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a > person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and > rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be > overwhelming evidence." Uh, thanks for that. > > > You have a very child-like view of this. If I decide (as I did) to > > _not_ allow bizarre markup (e.g. names and ID's that are the same for > > different elements), that is my design choice. > > Denial (bugs were not related to multiple identical IDs) I addressed all of your reported "bugs" in another post in this thread. Anything else? > > > You aren't following (and are clearly out of that loop). > > Denial Repeating it doesn't make it true. > > > See above. What you see as a bug may not be a bug at all. > > True, I have stated some may not be bugs, but a lot are valid bugs in > your code. Could be. All things relative, it is not a termite farm like the others. ;) > > > That's a completely worthless statement. > > Denial See above. > > > And you know it is patently > > untrue if you know the first thing about the DOM (and have read any of > > their DOM-level code). > > Denial Sheesh. > > > That's complete fiction. I've got almost 4000 posts here and maybe > > two come from a (well-advertised) alias, due to Google's idiotic > > posting limits. Please try to pay attention. > > Denial, majority of your posts are rants and you reply to yourself > regularly in your g-group (alias optional). I certainly do not. I slipped up and posted with my anti-Google-posting-limit alias once or twice. So what? > > > You talk about nothing but David Mark, with a few generalizations ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > about CSS selector engines thrown in. That's worthless noise by any > > standard in a technical discussion group. > > Classic David Mark See what I mean? > > > Another worthless generalization. All things relative, it's far more > > solid than anything out there. > > Denial A broken record. > > > You really are a disingenuous idiot. > > Classic David Mark See above. You really are my #1 fan, aren't you? > > > I should try a modified version of SlickSpeed? Why? > > Because 0ms results are almost worthless. It's better to see how many > executions can happen in a given time period. And I tried your tests and the results were predictable (mine is not even close to "one of the slowest.") What were you testing? > > > According to whatever nonsensical theory you have come up with about > > CSS selector engines (which are a stupid idea to begin with). > > Your approach is slow, so of course, the entire idea it's based on has > to be stupid. Classic David Mark. My approach is _not_ slow. In contrast, it is blazing fast compared to the "majors" in some environements and comparable in others. You just make this stuff up as you go along? Saying "it's slow" over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is silly. > > > I haven't tried your link. Is that a joke, or did you really create a > > tribute page? You've clearly got too much time on your hands > > Pot calling kettle. Your spamming, ranting, and harassment has reached > new levels since you were relieved from SitePen. You are just full of misconceptions. And don't expect a "jdalton" tribute page any time soon. ;)
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 16:00
jdalton wrote: > Hi David, This is a newsgroup. And what are you replying to? > > Heh, > You have it backwards (larger number is better), According to you. I have reason to doubt the veracity of your tests, especially if QSA is involved. All of the other incarnations of SlickSpeed are BS, but yours is gold? I doubt it. :) > smaller is worse, that means your methods executed slower than anyone > else. But, assuming your tests make sense, that isn't what the data indicated at all, is it? I would highlight that if you had bothered to quote me. :( |