> Your code example isn't really a fair comparison. Don't get me wrong. I like mootools very much. In this case first priority is performance (max 1000ms for 2000 rows) and nevertheless i would love to use mootools syntax.
> In your pure DOM code you clone the elements, in the mootools snippet > your creating a new element everytime. I've added a "Moo cloned" loop which is the fastest mooish way now. http://wfxde1.appspot.com/index.html > Based on your examples your table is already in the page. You > would increase performance on both if you build the table then inject it > into the page after your completely done creating it. Some events will trigger a reload of the table data. The table will be the same, but rows in tbody have to change. So here's the demo with disposed tbody wich gains 50ms on "Moo cloned": http://wfxde1.appspot.com/indexDisposed.html Unfortunately .set('html') does not work in FireFox when tbody isn't in the DOM anymore: http://wfxde1.appspot.com/setHTML.html Results ( IE7 / IE7 disposed | FF3 / FF3 disposed) so far: Moo: 2344ms / 2188ms | 453ms / 390ms Moo set('html', ...): 3031ms / 3016ms | 94ms / 31ms (broken) Moo cloned: 1422ms / 1375ms | 484ms / 422ms DOM: 484ms / 469ms | 219ms / 141ms innerHTML hacky: 63ms / 63ms | 47ms / 46 Regards, Kai Gülzau
