jQuery vs. My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 09:41 On Jan 22, 10:44 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 10:29 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: > > >> On Jan 22, 5:56 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Face it. I called your bluff. > > > > And you fell right on your face (again). You only tested a fast machine > > > and you weren't testing the right thing at all. The QSA branches will > > > always be about the same (and My Library's QSA-less implementation is > > > almost as fast as they are). How do you like that? > > > You heard it here first, folks! The latest version of David Mark's My > > Library runs faster on old machine running browsers nobody uses > > against those selectors he deigns to support than do two year old > > versions of the more widely-used libraries, at least when he tweaks > > the test framework every most one else uses intact! And this is how > > he proves that his library is better. I'm finding less and less of a > > reason to even try My Library. > > > Try as hard as you might to deny this, that is what your posts are > > claiming. > > > -- Scott > > err, "the test framework most everyone else uses intact." :-) > Don't bother proofing this drivel. I already sank all of your battleships. Didn't take thirty seconds. Think before you post next time. ;)
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 09:43 On Jan 22, 10:44 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 10:29 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: > > >> On Jan 22, 5:56 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Face it. I called your bluff. > > > > And you fell right on your face (again). You only tested a fast machine > > > and you weren't testing the right thing at all. The QSA branches will > > > always be about the same (and My Library's QSA-less implementation is > > > almost as fast as they are). How do you like that? > > > You heard it here first, folks! The latest version of David Mark's My > > Library runs faster on old machine running browsers nobody uses > > against those selectors he deigns to support than do two year old > > versions of the more widely-used libraries, at least when he tweaks > > the test framework every most one else uses intact! And this is how > > he proves that his library is better. I'm finding less and less of a > > reason to even try My Library. > > > Try as hard as you might to deny this, that is what your posts are > > claiming. > > > -- Scott > > err, "the test framework most everyone else uses intact." :-) > Oh, and I fixed those combinator issues last night. I uploaded a new mylib-min.js just for you. Let me know if you have any more issues with it. :)
From: Scott Sauyet on 23 Jan 2010 11:30 On Jan 22, 7:44 pm, john <john.loves.spam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > here are some more results. > > <http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib-testspeed.html> As pointed out, these tests were against two-year old versions of the other libraries. -- Scott
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 11:43 On Jan 23, 11:30 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 7:44 pm, john <john.loves.spam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > here are some more results. > > > <http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib-testspeed.html> > > As pointed out, these tests were against two-year old versions of the > other libraries. > As pointed out, my results were against _your_ test page, which included the "lastest and greatest" libraries, which basically added QSA on top of their old bullshit (without much benefit at all). Amazing that mine can be competitive (more than fast enough), even without QSA. Seems like a good reason not to foul things up with QSA, don't you think? The above link is a better test as it lets you know differences where they will matter (e.g. when the latest libraries "thunk" back to DOM traversal in browsers without built-in queries). Get it? And I'll add columns for the newer library versions when I get a chance. We already know the results though. About the same where it doesn't matter (fast PC's with QSA) and My Library by about a hundred lengths in anything less than that (which will include phones and other lesser agents), where it does matter. Now I know you get it, so don't hold your breath waiting for any major revelations on the Speed Test page. :)
From: David Mark on 23 Jan 2010 11:46
john wrote: > On 22 Jan 8:09 PM, David Mark wrote: >>> john wrote: >>> sorry for the confusion. >> >> BP. > > what does "BP" stand for? Typo. NP. :) |