On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jason Essington <[email protected]> wrote: > > oops, my bad, you are talking about the grid example ... > > This is overly simplified, but ... > > Well lets look at what is happening. every time you create a widget, > you instantiate a javascript object, that object has fields and > methods to support widget behavior, so more javascript object > instantiation, you also call Document.createElement() to create the > element that will ultimately be inserted into the DOM ... now you do > this multiple times because composite widgets are rarely just a single > widget. All of this stuff is done in an interpreted dynamic language ... This is only bad with a crappy interpreter. Seriously, Webkit, Gecko & Presto just cream IE7 (IE8 numbers don't seem to be available, but I don't hold much hope) & the new iterations are several times faster than that.
In fact, it appears that aside from IE, DOM is actually faster<http://andrew.hedges.name/experiments/innerhtml/>* than innerHTML * Caveat - I don't endorse the testing methodology because I haven't reviewed it, so it may be bunk. Nevertheless, it does appear that the common wisdom of using innerHTML may be a holdover. Now obviously widgets are more heavyweight than the DOM manipulations he's using, so I'm not sure what the impact of that is. > > Now, getInnerHtml() -> setInnerHTML() no objects are created in > javascript, (well, ok one string is created by the getInnerHTML call) > a single DOM method call is made that passes text to the underlying > browser rendering engine (usually compiled C of some sort) that engine > renders the html and you are done. > > Though there have been great strides in Javascript engine performance > in the last year, they still are nowhere near the performance of > compiled C code. Depends on what you're doing. I'm pretty sure that the overhead of parsing HTML in C is far greater than simply modifying a few pointers here or there in JS. > > -jason > > > On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Vitali Lovich wrote: > >> How is this different than building up the HTML structure using >> widgets as I mention above? > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
