>>Also, the jQuery file only has to be transfered once to each person
that used it. Then the browser just uses the cached file.
Well, that depends on a lot of things. :-)
If the loading time of the jQuery file is a real problem, you could
look at gzipping it. This will make it more compact while it transfers
from the server to the browser. It's something a lot of web developers
over look and easily quadrupled the speed of the files I was looking
at.
Also, the jQue
Um, the difference between 300ms and 800ms is half a second! :-)
But I agree that the SlickSpeed test doesn't mean much. What counts is how
fast it is with the code you actually write. And a little optimization in
your own code will usually take care of any speed problems (e.g. Don't
repeat an ex
Thnx for responding, sorry I didn't search on SlickSpeed, should have
though of that!
On Jun 14, 5:06 am, "Andy Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Abdul...
>
> Please do a Google search through the groups archive for messages regarding
> the SlickSpeed tests. Even the authors of the test admi
Abdul...
Please do a Google search through the groups archive for messages regarding
the SlickSpeed tests. Even the authors of the test admit it contains many
examples that aren't real world. Besides...while speed is important, the
difference between 300ms and 800ms is negligible. Further I'd tot
Hi Abdul,
We've addressed this question several times and I'd ask that you do a
search of the archives for more feedback.
Our selector performance is excellent across all browsers and we've not
heard any complaints from companies such as the BBC, Digg, Google or
Amazon about selector perfor
6 matches
Mail list logo
