I would guess that most (at least a large percentage) of their target audience has broadband.
-----Original Message----- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert O'Rourke Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:56 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite Glen Lipka wrote: > This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is > totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery. > Speed of Development is most important. if I can finish my job faster > then the user will be happier. If they have to wait 1/10 of a second > longer, they will not be heart broken. These tests are geeky > comparisons of technical detail that is irrelevant to human beings. > It's like video card comparisons that talk about speed of polygonal > shading textures per billionth of a second. > > Apple just redesigned their site. On the inside they use > Scriptaculous/Prorotype. Check http://www.apple.com/mac. Notice the > file size, 772k! That is humongous. Does it matter what the script > is at that point? > > So with that said, although I do like jQuery small, I don't think it > makes a difference whether its 20k or 50k. In the tradeoff's, I think > you need to find out how much "major improvements in speed" will > really cost? Is it really 10k more? Can it be a plugin? I have no > idea. I am just saying, I am not concerned with file size up to 50k. > > My only concern is about ease of use and maintainability. As long as > jQuery has that, then all these tests miss the point. > > Glen > > Agreed, I'm not that fussed because it's still plenty nippy and so much simpler for a newbite such as myself. Thats an obscene filesize for apples site! What percentage of people are actually on broadband these days? Or do they just not care anymore...
