Is there really a lot of code that relies on it? If there is, wouldn't
Chrome break on many more pages? I don't recall seeing any code that
assumes an order.
--tt
On Sep 4, 1:32 pm, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
>
On Sep 5, 6:32 am, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, but every other implementation does that,
No, they don't. In Firerfox 2 and 3 (and perhaps in earlier versions)
properties added to the window object are returned in reverse
order[1], in Opera 7 properties added to native ob
> Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
> implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
> language specs, do you?
But this gets to the very heart of the language - the Object . And an
ECMAScript object is an unordered collection of properties.
I don't think many read language specs, but I've heard over and over
(in books and online) that you can't rely on the order that you get
when you use "in" to set through keys. I thought that was fairly well
known. Nothing in the syntax hints that you'd get them in a certain
order.
However, obviou
Yes, but every other implementation does that, so a lot of code
implicitly relies on this. You don't really expect programmers to read
language specs, do you?
Jörn
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The s
On Sep 4, 2:00 pm, Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
> enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
This is not a bug in V8. The order of keys is never guaranteed to be
in the order they are inserted or specified in a literal
core module failure is a bug in WebKit, and it is fixed in ToT, I
tested the Safari official release 3.1.2, it fails with the same
result, but passes on nightly build r36012.
The second one is a bug in V8 (or Chrome). It returns reversed
enumeration order of keys if the object is a literal.
Here
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steffan A. Cline
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:37 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
on 9/3/08 7:19 AM, Andy Matthews at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> According to getclicky.com, Chrome alrea
half Of Rey Bango
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
> To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
>
>
> It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
> browser to-date that has been
Guy Fraser wrote:
>
> I really don't think it will eat in to FF, Opera and Safari - eg, you're
> not going to see Chrome running on Nintendo Wii, it's not going to be
> the pre-installed browser on OS X and developers aren't going to give up
> Firefox and all it's developer extensions over nigh
I guess well just have to wait and see which is best
On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I realized from this Paragraph
> JOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey (under development for about
> 2 months) performing better than V8 (under development for about 2
> years)."
>
>
fore more information on TranceMonkey pleasecheck
http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey
> (under development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under
> deve
I realized from this ParagraphJOhn said : "We already see TraceMonkey (under
development for about 2 months) performing better than V8 (under development
for about 2 years)."
maybe TranceMonkey it is going to be better that V8 but as you all know it
has it's own problems right now
john Said : "T
I read the linked article, and did not interpret it the way you did.
Certainly John does not come right out and say that TraceMonkey is
much better, and he probably knows that if he did, we'd take it with a
grain of salt since he works for Mozilla. (Note, though, that John
isn't on the TraceMonkey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
There are some bits of TraceMonkey that aren't yet complete - it's those
bits that will tip the balance. There was a recent article on
ajaxian.com about it:
http://ajaxian.com/archives/brendan-discusses-how-tracemo
Yup John believes TraceMonkey is much better than v8
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Dana Woodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8
> (despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you wrote
> wrong?
>
>
> On Sep
So you're saying that since Jon "thinks" TraceMonkey is better than V8
(despite the actual tests), than it must be? Or am I reading what you
wrote wrong?
On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear folk ,
> for more information please check this Article which John Resig
> pe
Guy Fraser wrote on 9/3/2008 5:22 AM:
I think everyone is missing the whole point of Chrome: It's designed to
kill MSIE on corporate networks - http://tinyurl.com/68lvhb
Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million Google pays
Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt eit
Please do not double post your message.
Rey
jQuery Project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear folk ,
for more information please check this Article which John Resig performed
http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and
Dear folk ,for more information please check this Article which John Resig
performed
http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown/
it says Chrome has been powered by V8 javascript engine , and JOhn and his
partners are working with TraceMonkey
and developing it , he believe it is much bette
Yes, I was about to say "What plugin architecture???" hhaha.
Thats for the link though, its good to see that they are actually planning
it, even though I was pretty sure they would anyways.
Cheers,
Dana
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ca-Phun Ung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ca-Phun Ung wrot
Bil Corry wrote:
> My comment was written in the context of the quote I replied to. Guy
> Fraser wrote that Chrome was "designed to kill MSIE on corporate
> networks." If that is the case, then the fact that Google will also
> save money from the conversion of Firefox users certainly doesn't
Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
> Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that
> sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for
> thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of
> IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and Saf
Query test suite on new Google Chrome browser
I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
thats so interesting..
right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins and I use safari 3
because it takes small memory...
it is amazing that CHrone has 3% of hits in the internet
That was me. I was up all night trying every site I could think of.
On Sep 3, 1:38 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
> thats so interesting..right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins
> and I use safari 3 because it
I wonder how come google load pages half the time that firefox 3.0 does ...
thats so interesting..right now I use firefox for its firebug and plugins
and I use safari 3 because it takes small memory...
it is amazing that CHrone has 3% of hits in the internet
Chrome also has its own DOM viewer/console. To use it, right-click
somewhere in the document and choose "Inspect Element." Not sure how
it compares to Firebug Lite, but it's another option.
--Karl
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Sep 2, 2008, at 1
Gotcha. My apologies for misunderstanding the context that you wrote the
email in.
Rey...
Bil Corry wrote:
Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 1:09 PM:
I was replying to your comment here:
"Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million
Google pays Mozilla every year probably
Dana wrote:
> The lack of a plugin system is a major drawback that will hinder
> adoption dramatically, especially among tech crowds. I have tried out
> Chrome and admit that I am impressed with it's speed, simplicity and
> specs, But I will not be able to even think about using it as a
> primary
Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 1:09 PM:
I was replying to your comment here:
"Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either... "
Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?
My comment was writte
Ca-Phun Ung wrote:
>
> I totally agree, a plugin acrhitecture is a must! And it does exist in
> Chrome! Plugins are referred to quite a bit in this excellent comic
> strip [1] by Scott McCloud.
>
>
Ah, just correcting myself (I hope that's allowed here :)
"As for plugins, Chrome will support
The lack of a plugin system is a major drawback that will hinder
adoption dramatically, especially among tech crowds. I have tried out
Chrome and admit that I am impressed with it's speed, simplicity and
specs, But I will not be able to even think about using it as a
primary browser till a plugin
Hi Bill,
I was replying to your comment here:
"Converting a few FF users over and saving on the USD $60+ million
Google pays Mozilla every year probably doesn't hurt either... "
Did I misread this or was it said in a context that I missed?
Rey...
Bil Corry wrote:
Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2
Rey Bango wrote on 9/3/2008 9:01 AM:
Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.
If your comment is directed to me, then you've misunderstood. I use Firefox.
I haven't installed Chrome, nor do I plan to.
- Bil
Chrome is pretty exciting as it's not just another browser but one that
sets to up-the-bar. I think it definitely gives other vendors food for
thought. As to whether it would kill IE? I'm sure it will take some of
IE's share but only after exhausting FF, Opera and Safari's market... I
expected
OK. I think I see.
By the way, I just did some light debugging in Chrome with Firebug
Lite. You can poke around in the DOM, which is nice.
If anyone wants to try it, the best way to do it is with the latest
Firebug Lite (the one that actually FEELS like Firebug, based off the
old Pi debugger). R
s.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rey Bango
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:01 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has be
That's a key thing. Firefox has a vast ecosystem of extensions (approx.
5,000+ add-ons).
And in the interest of full disclosure,I work for Mozilla and I help
manage Mozilla's Firefox extensions site, http://addons.mozilla.org. :D
Rey...
Giovanni Battista Lenoci wrote:
Rey Bango ha scritt
: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.
Yep, let's find a way for Goog
Rey Bango ha scritto:
Yep. You probably got that from TechCrunch and I tend to agree with
their comments that it's a spike due to the "newness" of the browser
and can expect to see that figure drop as people go back to using
their standard browsers.
Rey
I've tried chrome, very nice toy and
It's funny how quickly people begin to forget how Firefox is the only
browser to-date that has been able to wrestle any market share from
Microsoft and force Microsoft back to the standards table.
Yep, let's find a way for Google to kill Mozilla. Good thinking Bill.
Rey...
Bil Corry wrote:
alled GetClicky, Chrome already has 2.8% market share:
http://getclicky.com/chrome/
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery te
Makes sense because Chrome is based on WebKit just like Safari.
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of timothytoe
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:49 PM
To: jQuery (English)
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google
: [jQuery] Re: jQuery test suite on new Google Chrome browser
On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
Th
Matt Kruse wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
>> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
>> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
>>
I think everyone is missing the whole po
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt seemed to
be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys should not be
relied upon.
On Sep 2, 4:26 pm, "Michael Geary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Matt Kruse wrote:
>
> > > This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tes
I have a very large app that works perfectly in Chrome (with lots of
jQuery and jQuery plugs), so the omens are good. One computationally
intensive bit takes 14 seconds in FF3 and 7 in Chrome. Amazing.
On Sep 2, 12:45 pm, Guyon Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With all the buzz around
> From timothytoe
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think you misread Matt's post. Matt
> seemed to be saying the same thing you are--the order of keys
> should not be relied upon.
If you take out Matt's post, the context for my reply may be more clear...
> > From: Guy Fraser
> > I've never seen an E
> > Matt Kruse wrote:
> >
> > This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
> >
> > The code in param() calls:
> > for ( var j in a )
> > and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
> > order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
> >
That sounds suspiciously like what Safari does in some cases:
http://dreaminginjavascript.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/a-challenge/
On Sep 2, 2:49 pm, Matt Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit
Matt Kruse wrote:
> This appears to be a bad assumption in the jQuery tests.
>
> The code in param() calls:
> for ( var j in a )
> and makes the assumption that the keys will be returned in the same
> order they are specified. This is not an assumption that should be
> made, so the test should
On Sep 2, 2:45 pm, Guyon Morée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even though, Chrome seems to be a little bit faster than FF and quite
> a lot faster than IE, it has 2 failed tests:
> - 64: core module: text(String) (1, 3, 4)
This looks like a bug in Chrome to me. It doesn't escape > characters
when
To be honest (and plz don't take it the wrong way) but it means
absolutely nothing at this point as Chrome is still very beta and has
only been out for 1 day.
We will certainly support Chrome once it gets to a point where it's in
regular use but these issues are expected in a new product and
I apologize for submitting this twice
54 matches
Mail list logo
