It's your lucky day: commits for allowing custom CSS selector engine have just landed in the master branch.
As the CSS selector engine defaults to Sizzle (which is the engine jQuery uses) you'll get comparable performance. Best, Tobie On Nov 30, 9:23 pm, Simon <[email protected]> wrote: > With the following HTML: > > <table id="myTable"> > <tbody> > <tr> > <td><input type="text" name="n_1_1" /> ... <input > type="text" > name="n_1_6" /></td> > </tr> > ... > <tr> > <td><input type="text" name="n_1000_1" /> ... <input > type="text" > name="n_1000_6" /></td> > </tr> > </tbody> > </tbody> > > the following selector: > > $('myTable').down('input[name="n_500_3"]').up('tr').down('input > [name="n_500_4"]'); > > takes 1000 ms in IE7 with prototype, and approximately 20 ms with > MooTools and jQuery. > > This is only an example, so don't worry about why I would want to do > this. The main problem is the performance on large documents with > prototype. The difference between prototype and the two other > frameworks is huge. > > Are there any plans on optimizing prototype? > > Right now, in places where I need speed, I'm writing my own methods > for traversing the DOM. > > I'm also considering replacing prototype with MooTools, in the project > I'm working on, which will take A LOT of work. > > Thanks -- 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
