I'm perplexed at the resistance. We've tried telling our clients not to use IE6, "IE8 is much faster". But inevitably, we have to make it work.
Mike Wilcox http://clubajax.org [email protected] On Aug 11, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 8/11/10 9:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: >> On 8/11/10, Boris Zbarsky<[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 8/11/10 11:48 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>>> javascript:var start = new Date(); function f(n) { for (var k = >>>> n.firstChild; k; k = n.nextSibling) f(k); } f(document); alert(new >>>> Date() - start) >>> >>> Er, that had a typo. The correct script is: >>> >>> javascript:var start = new Date(); function f(n) { for (var k = >>> n.firstChild; k; k = k.nextSibling) f(k); } f(document); alert(new >>> Date() - start); >>> >> >> My result is 1012 > > In what browser? Firefox 3.6? (And presumably on reasonably slow hardware, > if so.) > > If so, really do try 4.0 beta. It's a good bit faster. > >> It's also highly contrived example. When you start doing any DOM >> manipluation, particularly appending or removing nodes, you're going >> to notice a lot larger times. > > Well, sure, but you also won't be walking the entire DOM in JS like this. > The HTML5 spec scripts sure don't, last I checked. > >>> Now the numbers are slightly larger; on the order of 230ms to 350ms. >>> Barely above human lag-perception. This is on a several-years-old >>> laptop as hardware. >> >> How do figure that's barely above human lag perception? > > The commonly accepted figure for when things start to feel laggy in UI terms > is 200ms. If someone clicks and nothing happens for more than 200ms then > they perceive the response as slow. Otherwise they generally perceive it as > "pretty much instant". > > -Boris
