> Did you use "prototype DOM" (x=new Element('P',{...});...) or "plain
> old vanilla DOM" (x=document.createElement('P');...) ?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I _did_ post the code.

I was using the Prototype DOM wrappers, but they're not the big speed
issue.  Here's a version with all three.  Prototype's DOM wrappers are
slightly slower than going direct (as you would expect), but the
direct method is still roughly 10x slower than using innerHTML.
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available

On Feb 17, 2:04 pm, Eric <lefauv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi T.J.
> On Jan 19, 12:31 pm, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
> > > On my machine, the DOM version takes at least 10 times longer than the
> > > HTML version.
> Did you use "prototype DOM" (x=new Element('P',{...});...) or "plain
> old vanilla DOM" (x=document.createElement('P');...) ?
> I was thinking to revert to vanilla DOM for performances issues but I
> may revert to build some HTML string if it is that fast :o)
> (Isn't it what scritaculous's Builder is doing internally?)
> Eric
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to