[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite

[Marshall Salinger]

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 noticed the Apple site yesterday when downloading Safari for Windows. They finally dropped the tab navigation! It's about time. I was a little sad to see that they were using prototype when I looked under the hood. -Marshall 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, they will not be heart broken.  These tests are geeky comparisons of technical detail that is irrelevant to human beings.  It's like video card comparisons that talk about speed of polygonal shading textures per billionth of a second. Apple just redesigned their site.  On the inside they use Scriptaculous/Prorotype.  Check http://www.apple.com/mac.  Notice the file size, 772k!  That is humongous.  Does it matter what the script is at that point? So with that said, although I do like jQuery small, I don't think it makes a difference whether its 20k or 50k.  In the tradeoff's, I think you need to find out how much "major improvements in speed" will really cost?  Is it really 10k more? Can it be a plugin?  I have no idea.  I am just saying, I am not concerned with file size up to 50k.  My only concern is about ease of use and maintainability.  As long as jQuery has that, then all these tests miss the point. Glen On 6/12/07, Robert O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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 forum when I was >> using that library. > > > Righto, cheers Rey. I'm definitely sticking with jquery as a tool of choice but I wonder, seeing as how mootools is modular couldn't someone just take that selector code snippet and write a plugin to make it spit out the jquery object? Rob