[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

v1.1.3 will have enhanced performance in many areas including selectors, effects, and animations. It should be out very, very soon. jsrobinson wrote: I agree with all the points about jQuery's greatness thus far, but... I have noticed that jQuery's animation can sap an older CPU, even in si

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I agree with all the points about jQuery's greatness thus far, but... I have noticed that jQuery's animation can sap an older CPU, even in simpler examples. I understand that the SlickSpeed test is not about animation, but given my anecdotal observations, the user experience on older PCs leaves

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

ps.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Lipka Sent: 13 June 2007 17:47 To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite http://www.apple.com/safari/ File size 1.2 megs. If Toby worked on this website, I think he would spontaneously combust. Gle

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

You gotta admit, 1.2mb for that page is explosively large ;¬] _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Lipka Sent: 13 June 2007 17:47 To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite http://www.apple.com

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

PS. Every page I visit on Apple seems to get bigger and bigger. They must be compensating for a lack of something. -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com http://www.KenzoHosting.com

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

http://www.apple.com/safari/ File size 1.2 megs. If Toby worked on this website, I think he would spontaneously combust. Glen PS. Every page I visit on Apple seems to get bigger and bigger. On 6/13/07, Benjamin Sterling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Toby, that is a great link, thanks for sha

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Toby, that is a great link, thanks for sharing. Don't forget http://www.dallaway.com/sloppy/ if you have forgotten what 56k or even ISDN is like... if you want integrity you want gracefulness however your site is accessed. Saying all this, for sites that do require speed as priority and can suf

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite I agree with Glenn on this one. I vote for "more speed", we need to "fight back". Another 5k doesn't matter that much to me or my clients since all of them have caching on. Maybe an extra plugin?

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Benjamin, I have a scheduling program with three months worth of calendars on screen. I build the calendars empty on the server side, and then populate them with javascript. Each calendar was a table and I was storing information on each like, what date was represented, whether the cell was

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

in Sterling *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:27 AM *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite Karl, Thanks, I am going to try to put together a real life example and test out what is faster. I will try to have something by end of week. Thanks agai

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

We'll expect something by the end of the day today. Get on that okay? ;) _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Sterling Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:27 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Sel

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Karl, Thanks, I am going to try to put together a real life example and test out what is faster. I will try to have something by end of week. Thanks again. On 6/13/07, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Benjamin, In this case, these are faster ... $('div.bam') $('span.bam') than thi

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Hi Benjamin, In this case, these are faster ... $('div.bam') $('span.bam') than this ... $('.bam') What I don't know is whether $('div.bam, span.bam') is faster than $ ('.bam'). I suspect that it might depend on the what the DOM looks like on a given page. --Karl _

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I've tested it with v1.1.3 and the improvements are enough to make a substantial difference. Rey David Duymelinck wrote: Gilles (Webunity) schreef: I agree with Glenn on this one. I vote for "more speed", we need to "fight back". Another 5k doesn't matter that much to me or my clients sinc

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

That's not a good example anyway. It's invalid because there can only be ONE unique ID per page. _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Heimlich Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:32 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re:

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I hear what everyone is saying about IDs, but lets flip the switch here and what if we have: This situation is a valid situation, one I normally am in (actually in a link situation). So, what is the fastest selector to retrieve on or another. -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.com

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

In IE6 that seems to be the case, but I discovered that by accident with a buggy script. Haven't deliberately tested what happens in other browsers, I would think that they probably all just return the first element they find with the correct ID but as the behaviour is describes as undefined I wo

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Gilles (Webunity) schreef: I agree with Glenn on this one. I vote for "more speed", we need to "fight back". Another 5k doesn't matter that much to me or my clients since all of them have caching on. Maybe an extra plugin? I thought John announced speed enchantments in 1.1.3. Is there someone

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I agree with Glenn on this one. I vote for "more speed", we need to "fight back". Another 5k doesn't matter that much to me or my clients since all of them have caching on. Maybe an extra plugin?

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Dan G. Switzer, II wrote: Saying "div#car" is literally saying find me all "div" tags, where the "id" is "car". To do that, we have to first get find all DIV tags and then figure out which one has an id of "car". That's the way it worked pre 1.1. Now, it's "get #car a

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Dan G. Switzer, II wrote: If you run this example, the has a yellow background and the has a pink background. However, only the get it's text appended to it. You can work around it by doing: $("[EMAIL PROTECTED]'bam']").append(" -- pink"); yep. that's

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:14 PM, Benjamin Sterling wrote: By the way, does anyone know which page the slickspeed test is run on ( http://mootools.net/slickspeed/) ? I can't find any of the actual elements on the page itself. Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but they are

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Dan G. Switzer, II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This just isn't exactly intuitive and can be confusing to people who'd expect a valid CSS selector rule to work in jQuery. Except that, while the selectors are syntactically valid, you can't have duplicate IDs on the same page, so you'

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

>Yes, getElementById returns the first one found, i.e. the first one in the >dom, if there are multiple nodes with the same id. The fact that jQuery looks for the id first, then the tag definitely improves performance, but causes the following example to fail: $(document).ready( functio

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

>But that is my thinking of why $('span#bam') would be faster then just >$('bam'). But getting an element by ID is much faster--because there's a native method of retrieval. You're either selecting all tags and then looking to see which has an ID of "bam", or your finding the first instance of

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Yes, getElementById returns the first one found, i.e. the first one in the dom, if there are multiple nodes with the same id. On 6/12/07, Aaron Heimlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/12/07, Dan G. Switzer, II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Plus, what happens if you have: > > > > > > What if

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Dan G. Switzer, II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Plus, what happens if you have: What if you need to retrieve the span tag? If it's checking #bam first, won't it only find the element? The DOM2 has this to say: getElementById introduced in DOM Level 2 Returns the Element

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

What if you need to retrieve the span tag? If it's checking #bam first, won't it only find the element? But that is my thinking of why $('span#bam') would be faster then just $('bam'). (And yes, I know the HTML spec says that IDs should be unique, but occasionally you're dealing w/dynam

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

> Saying "div#car" is literally saying find me all "div" tags, where >the "id" > is "car". To do that, we have to first get find all DIV tags and then >figure > out which one has an id of "car". > > >That's the way it worked pre 1.1. Now, it's "get #car and check if it's a >div".

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Karl, By the way, does anyone know which page the slickspeed test is run on ( http://mootools.net/slickspeed/) ? I can't find any of the actual elements on the page itself. Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but they are using iframes for each framework. ... I do think, howev

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Oh yeah. thanks a lot for pointing that out, Aaron. By the way, does anyone know which page the slickspeed test is run on (http://mootools.net/slickspeed/) ? I can't find any of the actual elements on the page itself. It's funny, though, that from the looks of the window.selectors array [

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Karl Swedberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It has a link to a speed test I threw together, and also to Aaron's enhancement. Just so nobody's confused, Karl's link[1] and my Firebug-enhanced speed test[2] both deal with jQuery 1.0, not 1.1. I have yet to upgrade my Firebug-enhanced t

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I think maybe he was referring to this one: http://www.learningjquery.com/2006/12/quick-tip-optimizing-dom-traversal As someone else already mentioned, the part about how it finds something like $('div#foo') is no longer true (as of 1.1), but the general principles are still relevant, I think

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Benjamin Sterling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (I thought it was on learningjquery.com, but could not find it) an article a couple months back. Could you be thinking of http://aheimlich.freepgs.com/javascript/jquery-11-selector-speeds (server seems to be a bit funky today, so watch

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

That is what I thought, especially after reading (I thought it was on learningjquery.com, but could not find it) an article a couple months back. Maybe someone can put together a "Best Practices" article. That's the way it worked pre 1.1. Now, it's "get #car and check if it's a div". -- Benj

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Hi Sean, 1) Lots of people take speed tests seriously, even if they're not a good way to judge a libraries use. Absolutely true Sean. 2) Making jQuery faster doesn't mean it has to be bigger in size, only more clever. Actually that's not 100% true. As Klaus mentioned, there are boundaries

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Dan G. Switzer, II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Saying "div#car" is literally saying find me all "div" tags, where the "id" is "car". To do that, we have to first get find all DIV tags and then figure out which one has an id of "car". That's the way it worked pre 1.1. Now, it's "get

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Really? hmmm... guess there a some code a need to change. A much more efficient method is just using "#car"--which says go get me the element who's ID is "car". The browser has a native method for getting this and this is very fast an efficient. -- Benjamin Sterling http://www.KenzoMedia.

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Benjamin, >>I switched to a different methodology and it sped up > >Can you explain what you did? I try to give a full path to an item, ie: > > > > > >$('div#car div.part') > >This may be off topic a bit, but I do believe we should educate people on >the fastest way to select an object. Mor

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

>One bad Apple spoils the bunch. I think there's a Donnie Osmond joke in there somewhere...

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I switched to a different methodology and it sped up Can you explain what you did? I try to give a full path to an item, ie: $('div#car div.part') This may be off topic a bit, but I do believe we should educate people on the fastest way to select an object. -- Benjamin Sterling http:/

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Someone should let them know...that's just assinine. _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Lipka Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:26 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite Ok, Apple engineer

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Ok, Apple engineers are seriously "a few kilobytes short of meg". Check out the file size of http://www.apple.com/itunes/ Compressed its 878k. But look why. They are using the uncompressed, unminified, totally commented versions of prototype and scriptaculous. Nothing is minified, much less pack

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Sean Catchpole wrote: I hear a lot of discussion about how jQuery isn't that slow, the test wasn't perfectly fair (what test is?), that keeping code small is important, and that development time is the most important thing. 1) Lots of people take speed tests seriously, even if they're not a

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

it totaly agree. And about the Dimensions plugin: a lot of other plugins use their own (not so good) implementation of the functionality the Dimensions plugin provide. On 12 jun, 20:22, "Glen Lipka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Things I would vote to increase the base size with: > >1. Dimensi

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Sean Catchpole wrote: 2) Making jQuery faster doesn't mean it has to be bigger in size, only more clever. Well, at some point there are boundaries and it has to become bigger. For example if using native XPath support in certain browsers is the only way to speed it up. --Klaus

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I hear a lot of discussion about how jQuery isn't that slow, the test wasn't perfectly fair (what test is?), that keeping code small is important, and that development time is the most important thing. 1) Lots of people take speed tests seriously, even if they're not a good way to judge a librar

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Someone once said to me "this will be a moot point by 2008" - but I totally disagreed with them. Yes countries like the UK, USA, Canada and Japan may have > 80% coverage and > 50% subscription rates, but in these countries as you say there are still a large proportion of users on dialup. Many p

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Things I would vote to increase the base size with: 1. Dimensions http://jquery.com/plugins/project/dimensions (13k uncompressed / 3 packed) 2. More selectors: http://www.softwareunity.com/sandbox/JQueryMoreSelectors/ (12k uncompressed / ? packed) 3. Speed Improvements (Up to 10k addi

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

> -Original Message- > From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I would guess that most (at least a large percentage) of their target > audience has broadband. Last weekend I was over a friends house with dial-up and I was amazed at how completely unusable the web was for me...

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery. It does, and it is. That was why I tried to open the consideration out a bit further to the eventuality of someth

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Rey Bango wrote on 6/12/2007 7:25 AM: So at the end of the day, it comes down to this: - We can increase selector speeds at the expense of file size or - We can continue to focus on providing tight code in a small package and take what is arguably a small hit in speed Since most browsers

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rey Bango Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:25 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite One of the reasons that these libraries have made substantial improvements has been that jQuery has lead

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

A lot is being made of how small jQ is. From the quick check I did, jQ compressed is 5k smaller than Prototype, and MooTools with a quick selection of the functions that seem to be in jQ was 27k, only 10k more than jQ. Considering the library is typically downloaded once and then cached, 5-10k

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Query] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite Glen Lipka wrote: > This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is > totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery. > Speed of Development is most important. if I can finish my job faster > then the use

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Andy Matthews wrote: Well said. That about sums it up for me. Yes, I agree as well. The problem is that probably still people will draw the wrong conclusions from such tests. I have the feeling that library makers just use these tests to get draw attention. Thus its even more important to s

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Glen Lipka wrote: This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery. Speed of Development is most important. if I can finish my job faster then the user will be happier. If they have to wait 1/10 of a second longer

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Well said Glen. I would have to agree that these tests are for the most part totally irrelevant with regards to most usage. Anyways, I would still use jQuery even if it was 30k. That is still very small compared to a the image file sizes that are used in highly designed/styled web sites. I no

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Well said. That about sums it up for me. _ From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Lipka Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:08 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite This topic comes up every time a

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

This topic comes up every time a speed test emerges. To me, speed is totally irrelevant in most circumstances that I use jQuery. Speed of Development is most important. if I can finish my job faster then the user will be happier. If they have to wait 1/10 of a second longer, they will not be hea

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:25 AM Rey Bango <> said: > With that said, its definitely our turn to get things ramped up but > we're kind of in a quandary. See, one of the benefits of jQuery is its > very small file size. We're still the smallest library out there and > our overall functionality is

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Rey Bango wrote: Hi Robert, Thats precisely the reason that its slower. We continue to work on providing the most comprehensive functionality in the smallest package. This is one of the drawbacks of that approach. Rey... Robert O'Rourke wrote: > Is Jquery slower because it's more compact

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

I agree. I don't want to see jQuery get bloated, but if it was between the two options of "Keep it < 20kb but slower" or "Go to 25-30kb and get major improvements" I'd vote for number two. I'd only go for number one if there was really going to be little improvement to any of the changes. One

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Great post, Felix! Very well said. What does this mean? It means that jQuery is nowhere as slow as the final test results make it appear (26x slower then mootools). It means that mootools got the performance lead in some specific selector (and does good in general) which is given way too much

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

On 6/12/07, Rey Bango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:- We can increase selector speeds at the expense of file size How about looking at this specifically a little closer? It's already been pointed out that jQuery could get a lot bigger and /still/ remain the smallest library. So, the question is why 2

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Well here is my personal (and widely uneducated) opinion on this speed test. First what I think is good about it: * each framework get's it's own iframe - avoid conflicts between them * the test itself is written without using a framework What I think is bad about it: * There are 3 nt

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Rey Bango wrote: So at the end of the day, it comes down to this: - We can increase selector speeds at the expense of file size or - We can continue to focus on providing tight code in a small package and take what is arguably a small hit in speed I've had no issues at all with JQuery's pe

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Speaking as somebody who had not even considered using javascript, because of a complete and utter lack of knowledge of its inner workings, the major reasons for selecting jquery as a tool of choice were 1. it is readily understandable (once you have taken the time to read the documentation and u

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Hi Robert, Thats precisely the reason that its slower. We continue to work on providing the most comprehensive functionality in the smallest package. This is one of the drawbacks of that approach. Rey... Robert O'Rourke wrote: > Is Jquery slower because it's more compact then? ie. better f

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Rey Bango schrieb: One of the reasons that these libraries have made substantial improvements has been that jQuery has lead the pack in terms of [...] if i have to parse alot #selectors i could easily swap to "jquery-steroids.js" or sth. like this but would the meintainers be able to keep bo

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

une 12, 2007 9:25 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite One of the reasons that these libraries have made substantial improvements has been that jQuery has lead the pack in terms of innovation and our efforts have motivated them to finally impr

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Michael Stuhr wrote: my results: FF 2.0.0.4 WinXP-SP2 http://onenterframe.de/temp/ micha Is Jquery slower because it's more compact then? ie. better for light usage? I much prefer the syntax and the community around jquery. I never got any helpful responses from anyone on the mootools for

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

One of the reasons that these libraries have made substantial improvements has been that jQuery has lead the pack in terms of innovation and our efforts have motivated them to finally improve their frameworks. Prototype is probably the best example of this, having been forced to finally forma

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

It's crazy how much faster Prototype, MooTools and ext are. -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Stuhr Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:14 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Sel

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Andy Matthews schrieb: It's by the people who "won" the testing, so that makes it just a little suspect. This is probably just like the testing from about 6 months back in which the jQuery library was several versions older than the most recent. That said, here's what I got: IE 7.0.57/PC --

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

be a nice test suite. -Original Message- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bil Corry Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:49 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite Bil Corry wrote on 6/12/2007 6:43 AM: >

[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

Bil Corry wrote on 6/12/2007 6:43 AM: - SlickSpeed is a CSS selector test suite provided by the MooTools folk. This tool comes at the same time as they release CSS3 support in Mootools, and it compares Prototype, jQuery, MooTools, Ext, and CSS Query.