There is also the obvious issue that the totals are different because he added times for things that jQuery wasn't designed to handle. ( like div ~ div) Every platform that is mature will have "a strength" that makes it look good. And the age old reality is statistically speaking you can make anything look good and bad. :)
jQuery is fast enough for the job. If you need something more powerful then browser dom... consider moving to the Flash platform. :) (using Flex Builder or some other tool like Aptana for AIR apps, or even one of the third party flash app builders.) Remember jQuery is a JS/Dom solution. (Of course we will see what happens when the next version of FF ships. It will include Actionscript 3 that is a much faster processing engine than the common JS engines out here now. It also has better XML handling. John Farrar Scott Sauyet wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Go to : http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ >> >> Why is jquery so slow ? > > This has been discussed a great deal this week, especially in these > threads: > > http://tinyurl.com/yoekz5 > http://tinyurl.com/2x9dbf > http://tinyurl.com/2axcxq > > Fundamentally, the answer is that JQuery has focused on other concerns > than raw speed, mostly developer productivity and small footprint. > The core team is going to look at alternatives, including relaxing the > 20K limitation that has kept them from choosing some of the > optimizations that would speed things up. > > I'm guessing that as silly as such a test is in real-world work, it > will drive a substantial change to the selector processing of JQuery. > And that's the beauty of the competition among these frameworks. > > -- Scott > >
