Hi, how did you collect timing data? I use FF3.5b4 with it's JIT
JavaScript engine an I would like to see how it will change things for
all three methods.
keemor wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to present 3 ways of building ul list and compare the speed
of them.
I used firebug's profiler on FF3
Use Profile from firebug manually or :
console.profile([title]) console.profileEnd()
http://getfirebug.com/console.html
On May 13, 12:32 pm, Иван Генчев igenc...@deo.uni-sofia.bg wrote:
Hi, how did you collect timing data? I use FF3.5b4 with it's JIT
JavaScript engine an I would like to see
On May 13, 6:12 pm, keemor kee...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to present 3 ways of building ul list and compare the speed
of them.
I used firebug's profiler on FF3
html:
body
a href=# id=gogo/a
ul id=list/ul
/body
$('go').observe('click',go);
[...]
Third:
Time
Thanks T.J. for this long answer.
Maybe not many people will face such a performance problem, but this could
be written in documentation, so we can avoid such issues at the beginning.
This could be also good topic for PimpMyCode series at Prototype's blog.
Greetings
Romek
2009/5/13 T.J. Crowder
It's a very common development pattern/problem that comes up.
Creating a bunch of repetitive DOM elements and inserting them into
the page.
It comes down to:
1) Native for loops will always be faster then calling a function
that then does the loop
2) Native inserts are faster then library
