Don't we have a plugin which might allay some of the speed concerns? I'm LOVING the fact that jQuery is 19k, BUT even if it were to bump up to 25k or 30k, it would STILL be the smallest overall library. And honestly, these days, people spend 100k just on one IMAGE, which doesn't even provide any functionality.
I'd say that increasing the library size up to 10k would be an acceptable compromise to get increased speed and flexibility. Thoughts? -----Original Message----- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rey Bango Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:25 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite One of the reasons that these libraries have made substantial improvements has been that jQuery has lead the pack in terms of innovation and our efforts have motivated them to finally improve their frameworks. Prototype is probably the best example of this, having been forced to finally formalize the project after sitting in limbo for almost a year, add chaining and even improve its DOM querying. With that said, its definitely our turn to get things ramped up but we're kind of in a quandary. See, one of the benefits of jQuery is its very small file size. We're still the smallest library out there and our overall functionality is on par with any of the ones listed. In terms of overall ease of use, I still think we're the leader. But in keeping a small size we're limited in how much tweaking can be done. Neither PT, Ext or Moo have limitations on file size so they have the flexibility to add much more code to enhance their speed than we do. Our core team certainly has the talent to greatly enhance the selector speeds but we want to continue to provide a nice, small package. So at the end of the day, it comes down to this: - We can increase selector speeds at the expense of file size or - We can continue to focus on providing tight code in a small package and take what is arguably a small hit in speed The reason I say arguably is because unless you're manipulating a HUGE amount of selectors, I'm not sure how much of a visual difference you would see. I know this has been discussed before and that was pretty much the consensus (ie: small # of selectors, no big deal. Large # of selectors, possible concern). Considering that we are, IMO, the project thats most in tune with its community, your feedback is definitely most welcome. Rey... Bil Corry wrote: > > Bil Corry wrote on 6/12/2007 6:43 AM: >> ----- >> SlickSpeed is a CSS selector test suite provided by the MooTools folk. >> >> This tool comes at the same time as they release CSS3 support in >> Mootools, and it compares Prototype, jQuery, MooTools, Ext, and CSS >> Query. >> >> <http://ajaxian.com/archives/slickspeed-css-selector-testsuite> >> ----- > > Opps, meant to post the results I got: > > MooTools 1.2dev: 208 ms > prototype 1.5.1: 231 ms > ext 1.1b1: 1385 ms > jQuery 1.1.2dev: 5678 ms <-- jQuery! > cssQuery 2.02: 6995 ms > > > - Bil > > > -- BrightLight Development, LLC. 954-775-1111 (o) 954-600-2726 (c) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iambright.com
