Thanks, Rey... It seems to me, anyway, that debating over one tool or another being a tenth of a second faster than another is kinda ridiculous.
I've seen way too many sites that don't properly optimize images and end up with a 400 KB image trying to download that could easily be optimized to 20 KB and maintain image quality... figure up the difference in performance speed of handling a 400 KB image vs a 20 KB image and then you've got a *real* issue on your hands. Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rey > Bango > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:02 PM > To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com > Subject: [jQuery] Re: Performance of jquery > > > Hi Rick, > > Every so often, someone just mysteriously posts a message almost exactly > like the one that you saw today and it's usually a brand new user to the > list. It's been happening on a frequent basis and is assuredly link bait. > > So I want you to trust my judgment that when I say it's spam/link bait > it truly is. I would never censor any thread and would only request this > if I truly felt that it was someone trolling the list. > > Rey... > > Rick Faircloth wrote: > > Sorry, Rey, but I just wanted to understand the issue. > > > > It seems like jQuery comes out the winner in the tests > > that are run, but from everyone's response, I would expect > > the results to be the opposite. > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Rick
