On 12/19/10, Balázs Galambosi <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/12/19 Garrett Smith <[email protected]>: [...]
> > I like your tests. I would love to see how new versions of browsers > perform. I ran the tests on my computer out of curiosity: > > Windows 7 Ultimate on an AMD 64 x2 Dual Core 5200+ (2.7GHz) > > https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AkXKo_3bj2oXdDRfUFlSWFJxdlJvbDJPWl85dlFqREE&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=html Thanks for reporting your results. > > - The old results are from your table. So comparing the two is of > course nonsense. > - Opera 11 crashes for me after the first test. > - IE 9 gives "Error: Object doesn't support this property or method" > for `fdoc.clear();` so it was commented out. > > - Firefox 4.0b8pre is blazingly fast for everything except closures > and objCreate. I mean closures are fast, but still not on pair with > Chrome. Seems Firefox 4.0pre is fast going *through* a closure, to global. These two are fast: closureToGlobalAssign, closureToGlobalRead. > - Chrome 10 (Canary build with Crankshaft): ok performance for > everything, but closures are like a miracle here. Yeah, super fast. > - IE 9 is a bit strange. 1135ms for localRead? Something is not right > here. Maybe I need to reinstall. Well if document.clear() is failing, that's also a bug. Though unrelated. document.clear has been around since before I started, around NS4 / IE5. > > Better yet you could test these browsers on your computer, and so the > numbers become comparable with the old ones. > Might not be possible. I believe I used two machines: One mac (for Safari 2) and a Dell running a cracked version of windows vista ultimate for the others. That Dell is now running a legal copy of Windows 7, though is missing drivers. Dell's official website states that Windows 7 is not available, and that I can buy a new Dell. Anyway, that environment is no longer available (which is a good thing overall). [...] > > Because of the way how @private works, yes, it's not really private. > It's more for those coming from Java or compiled languages who used to > catch such errors at "compile time". I do think that @private in its > current form is not doing much, because properties pre/postfixed with > _ are already marked as private, and one has to be a bit silly if > messes with such members of an object from outside. > Sure, but the definition of "private" is kind of loose. I believe I have seen cases where a "subclass" was using "_" prefixed methods in the "superclass". Other conventions include using double underscore or one or more underscores at the end of the property name, as in "myPrivateProp_". > But if pornwar3zads.js is successfully injected to your site it can do > harm no matter if closures are used or not. Because it can access and > mess with built-in and host objects you're using throughout your > application. It's much more of a concern. > Sure, or it could use location.replace("http://example.net/";); > Finally, it may well be that the OOP system only kicks in if ADVANCED > more is turned on, and it's by definition meant to be processing > you're whole application. Still no excuse if you want real privacy of > course. > Well a closure can be used to hide something. It's late. I'm going to sleep now. -- Garrett -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
