Just for laughs I ran that test in Konqueror 3.5.6.  EVERY SINGLE TEST 
FAILED for both MooTools and Prototype.  Every single test passed for 
jQuery.  And here I thought jQuery would have at least a few failures 
seeing as Konqueror isn't the best supported browser for these types of 
libraries.. :)

Soooo.. The end results say it best for me:

final time (less is better)
MooTools:  25
Prototype: 25
jQuery:    630

Sseeing as every test failed for MooTools and Prototype, the "25" ms 
value has absolutely NO meaning at all.  Yet less is better according to 
the test.  So, the test is obviously flawed in some ways.

 From my perspective.  I don't care at all if something takes 20ms vs 
5ms.  Because this time value is on the CLIENT machine, not the server 
or a reflection of network latency.  Therefore, the obvious answer is 
that if it feels too slow, that client needs to upgrade their box.  This 
test does not even come close to accurately testing times for a high 
volume network.  It is ONLY testing the speeds of the different 
selectors ON THE CLIENT.  And the effectiveness of those selectors 
(what's with the different number of matches for div:contains(CELIA) 
under firefox??).

And with that, I'm done for the night (3:15am here, need sleep.. :)

Shawn

Rey Bango wrote:
> 
> Hi Prit,
> 
> Please do a search in the archives for this topic. Just as early as last 
> week, I posted a response to this.
> 
> Also, be sure to run the same test in IE so you can see totally 
> different results. My post goes into detail about that as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rey...
> 
> prit wrote:
>> I have tried different javascript frameworks and I finally decided to
>> use jQuery because of the ease of use and all the good plugins
>> available.
>>
>> But recently I noticed a website http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ which
>> compares 3 frameworks including jQuery. I ran the tests on that site
>> and noticed that they show jQuery as the slowest performer out of the
>> 3 frameworks (Mootools, Prototype and jQuery).
>>
>> Does anybody have comments on this ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Prit
>>
>>

Reply via email to