Aparajita Fishman wrote:
http://mootools.net/slickspeed/
Overall, the combination of Safari+Prototype came out ahead
of everything else. (Only tried Safari, FireFox and IE7 on
Windows XP).
http://www.prototypejs.org/
That test was of the CSS3 selectors in the different Javascript
toolkits. That is not necessarily representative of the overall speed
of the toolkit.
In any case, for me what is more important is the design and power of
the functionality provided by the toolkit. jQuery (http://jquery.com)
is in many ways much more powerful than prototype and supports a
plugin architecture, so there is a huge library of plugins that add
great functionality to it.
I agree. I'm working on a project now where I spent a lot of time
evaluating libraries and in the end chose jQuery. My biggest reasons
were documentation, good examples and a very supportive community. Plus
I really like the design too. The next release will supposedly speed up
some of the selector issues.
There is an interesting discussion about jQuery's poor showing in the
slickspeed tests here on the jQuery Google groups.
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/browse_thread/thread/0f2447208183fe73/#
-- Brad
If you want the Cadillac/Rolls Royce of javascript toolkits (IMHO),
check out Ext (http://extjs.com). It is totally amazing -- in some
ways more powerful that 4D's native interface tools.
Regards,
Aparajita
www.aparajitaworld.com
"If you dare to fail, you are bound to succeed."
- Sri Chinmoy | www.srichinmoylibrary.com
_______________________________________________
Active4D-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.aparajitaworld.com/mailman/listinfo/active4d-dev
Archives: http://mailman.aparajitaworld.com/archive/active4d-dev/
_______________________________________________
Active4D-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.aparajitaworld.com/mailman/listinfo/active4d-dev
Archives: http://mailman.aparajitaworld.com/archive/active4d-dev/
