Someone should let them know...that's just assinine. _____
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Lipka Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:26 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite Ok, Apple engineers are seriously "a few kilobytes short of meg". Check out the file size of http://www.apple.com/itunes/ Compressed its 878k. But look why. They are using the uncompressed, unminified, totally commented versions of prototype and scriptaculous. Nothing is minified, much less packed. AND, they are not using GZIP on the scripts either. Now, most users never know this sort of thing. But, come on, is a little craftsmanship that difficult? One bad Apple spoils the bunch. Glen On 6/12/07, Christopher Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sean Catchpole wrote: > > I hear a lot of discussion about how jQuery isn't that slow, the test > wasn't perfectly fair (what test is?), that keeping code small is > important, and that development time is the most important thing. > > 1) Lots of people take speed tests seriously, even if they're not a > good way to judge a libraries use. > I agree 100% > 2) Making jQuery faster doesn't mean it has to be bigger in size, only > more clever. > I can't really speak to this one. > 3) Development time is important, but so are viewer's patience. Slow > code is never good. > *Absolutely!* I could not agree more. I had a page where I was using a bunch of selectors, and it was just plain slow. I switched to a different methodology and it sped up (some... I think there are still problems with my code on that page... but that's another topic :o) I would like to see jQuery's speed improve. I don't want a bloated core, but if the library stays relatively small (I know very subjective) say, under 100K that wouldn't be too bad. Would it? Chris > -- http://www.cjordan.us
