I wasn't claiming that for was any less great than each! I was complaining about looping a concat vs. doing a join at t the end... and other micro effeciencies. I gave up tiny-tuning code when I gave up assembler.
I tell this to all my programmers, You can't compare a little application code time to the time it takes to do a big IO (or http or sql...). I tend to be opinionated about certain things... I am an XSL guy, I don't like incrementing! (a for loop works when there is little else!) On 10/3/06, Christof Donat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > I like optimized code as much as the next guy... but brevity and > > readability is KEY. the milliseconds that you can save using one > > reasonable technique vs. another are not comparable to the seconds it > > takes for an http request. > > Is this about my suggestion to use for() instead of each()? If not, my code is > not noticably longer than Marks. I also don't think that it is less readable. > > If you are just talking about the for()-each() stuff. Both have their > advantages and their disadvantages. If it is the inner loop of a function you > expect to call often, you may whant to pay the price of less readability and > brevity for the performance of for(). > > > I never liked using XMLSerializer because [...] > > It can be quite usefull with XMLHttpRequests when your protocol is XML-based. > But that was not the question here, was it? > > Christof > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > [email protected] > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > -- Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ ░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░ ▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒░▒ _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
