Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > Javascript framework performance

Reply
Thread Tools

Javascript framework performance

 
 
RobG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a
different take on their SlickSpeed[2] tests. More grist for the DM
anti-jQuery crusade - although Prototype.js seems to have saved it
from the wooden spoon for performance[3].

1. <URL: http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/ >
2. <URL: http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ >
3. <URL: http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspe...rt/charts.html >


--
Rob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
RobG wrote:
> The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a
> different take on their SlickSpeed[2] tests. More grist for the DM
> anti-jQuery crusade - although Prototype.js seems to have saved it
> from the wooden spoon for performance[3].
>
> 1. <URL: http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/ >
> 2. <URL: http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ >
> 3. <URL: http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspe...rt/charts.html >


Yawn. Is that the time?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gregor Kofler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
RobG meinte:
> The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a
> different take on their SlickSpeed[2] tests. More grist for the DM
> anti-jQuery crusade - although Prototype.js seems to have saved it
> from the wooden spoon for performance[3].
>
> 1. <URL: http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/ >
> 2. <URL: http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ >
> 3. <URL: http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspe...rt/charts.html >


Depends heavily on the browser - on Opera and Chromium jQuery is
abysmally slow. On Firefox 3 it's - relatively speaking - not /that/
slow. But since FF is the slowest of the bunch on my computer, it's even
more atrocious.

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.com
http://web.gregorkofler.com - vxJS, a JS lib in progress
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
On May 14, 6:14*am, RobG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a


I wouldn't bother reading anything they publish about browser
scripting. See the review of their script.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....2d160dff2ce872

None of this matters anyway. What if jQuery, Prototype, MooTools etc.
could demonstrate something other than outrageously bad performance
(don't really need to run the tests to predict this outcome), they
would still be ill-advised compilations of useless browser scripting
trivia (not to mention ridiculous designs for Javascript.)

Competent cross-browser scripts are based on ideas. Incompetent
scripts are collections of misinterpretations based upon haphazardly
collected empirical data. It should be obvious which approach rots
and which keeps. The proof is in the constant rewrites, which often
contradict previous misinterpretations, leading to "old" browsers like
Opera 9.0 dropping off the supported list.

Should also be obvious that modern browsers have converged over the
last few years (even IE at this point), so the idea of a magic
compatibility leveler is as outdated as the inferences made by these
scripts. In the case of jQuery, it has been proven beyond any doubt
that the scripts create more problems than they solve.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
On May 14, 6:14*am, RobG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a
> different take on their SlickSpeed[2] tests.


[snip]

Appears to be a Dojo product. Good idea as measuring QSA results is
not going to illuminate anything.

I noticed one apologist response for jQuery and the like that admitted
the results were proof of sluggishness, but referred to these
monoliths as "time-savers" (and fun) in the same breath. I guess the
idea is to pass the productivity losses on to the end-user.

I like the inclusion of "pure" DOM methods. And it was predictable
that the "major library" zealots would label this "cheating."
Backwards as usual. They've been caught cheating and are crying that
those who studied have an unfair advantage. If only they had been
listening the last few years (as opposed to reciting marketing babble.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
On May 14, 12:29*pm, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]

In the case of jQuery, it has been proven beyond any doubt
> that the scripts create more problems than they solve.


In case anyone needs more proof:

http://groups.google.com/group/jquer...6d6d405fb788b7

This key method (attr) will obviously never be fixed. All they do is
exchange memorized magic spells, which appear to work fleetingly, then
break on the next half-assed patch or browser revision. The "old"
browsers are cut loose and the spell gathering starts anew.

These are the developers tasked with "solving" IE (among a few other
browsers) for everyone and every situation. It is unfortunate that
they are so unfamiliar with their targeted agents. I couldn't see
using them to build one script for one site with one supported browser
installation on one computer. A magic do-everything for everyone in
"all browsers" script is clearly beyond their reach. Seems most of
the rest of the development world is content to watch, wait and wonder.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2009
On May 14, 2:39*pm, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On May 14, 12:29*pm, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> In the case of jQuery, it has been proven beyond any doubt
>
> > that the scripts create more problems than they solve.

>
> In case anyone needs more proof:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/jquer.../thread/936d6d...
>


And again.

http://groups.google.com/group/jquer...e58b7cd44f56c#

Yeah, they put rowspan in their attr "black list" (as of 1.3x), but
not colspan.

Ironic, considering CLJ and this other group can be read through the
same Website. Seems searching this group for "colspan" and "jQuery"
would produce the answer immediately.

Or, they could search their own group to see what other neophytes
think:

http://groups.google.com/group/jquer...be8871?lnk=gst

"The JavaScript implementation of colSpan seems to work fine. Looks
like a problem with IE's implementation of the DOM rather than with
JQuery, but I couldn't find it documented anywhere, so I wanted to
post it here."

Lots more COLSPAN confusion where that came from:

http://groups.google.com/group/jquer...ebfadb?lnk=gst

Hopeless. All of this nonsense is due to an obvious jQuery bug in a
method that should never have been written. As usual, it is
attributed to IE (no pun intended.) I thought jQuery was supposed to
be the great leveler? They had over ten years to study IE5-7 and this
is what they came up with? Years later, people stumble over these
bottled misconceptions on a daily basis, yet some inexplicable
devotion keeps them coming back for more.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RobG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2009
On May 15, 4:25*am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On May 14, 6:14*am, RobG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a
> > different take on their SlickSpeed[2] tests.

>
> [snip]
>
> Appears to be a Dojo product.


It seems to be on the Dojo domain, I thought it was Mootools based on
the copyright statement at the bottom, perhaps that relates to the
SlickSpeed component.


> Good idea as measuring QSA results is
> not going to illuminate anything.


QSA?


> I noticed one apologist response for jQuery and the like that admitted
> the results were proof of sluggishness, but referred to these
> monoliths as "time-savers" (and fun) in the same breath. *I guess the
> idea is to pass the productivity losses on to the end-user.


Yes, most don't understand that writing POJS doesn't always take
longer, that the few extra minutes here and there are returned ten-
fold in performance over time and that code size is only very loosely
correlated to performance, development time and maintainability.

But gee whiz, check out that truely awsome accordion thingy that
annoys the crap out of users!


> I like the inclusion of "pure" DOM methods. *And it was predictable
> that the "major library" zealots would label this "cheating."


A clear admission of defeat.

> Backwards as usual.


Yup, wherever possible in the test code plain js should be replaced
with the equivalent library functionality, it's supposed to be testing
the library, not POJS.


--
Rob
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2009
On May 14, 11:06*pm, RobG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On May 15, 4:25*am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 6:14*am, RobG <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > The people at Mootools have published TaskSpeed[1], which is a
> > > different take on their SlickSpeed[2] tests.

>
> > [snip]

>
> > Appears to be a Dojo product.

>
> It seems to be on the Dojo domain, I thought it was Mootools based on
> the copyright statement at the bottom, perhaps that relates to the
> SlickSpeed component.
>
> > Good idea as measuring QSA results is
> > not going to illuminate anything.

>
> QSA?


querySelectorAll. Should be qSA, I suppose. Basically, all of those
buggy query engines that work only on the latest browsers are
worthless now.

>
> > I noticed one apologist response for jQuery and the like that admitted
> > the results were proof of sluggishness, but referred to these
> > monoliths as "time-savers" (and fun) in the same breath. *I guess the
> > idea is to pass the productivity losses on to the end-user.

>
> Yes, most don't understand that writing POJS doesn't always take
> longer, that the few extra minutes here and there are returned ten-
> fold in performance over time and that code size is only very loosely
> correlated to performance, development time and maintainability.
>
> But gee whiz, check out that truely awsome accordion thingy that
> annoys the crap out of users!


Speaking of worthless (no pun intended):

http://groups.google.com/group/jquer...7aafb9a4a354cd

Sortable too! Well, not really. The OP appears to be looking for
something to paste into an inherited widget. The UI guy can't help,
that's for sure.

>
> > I like the inclusion of "pure" DOM methods. *And it was predictable
> > that the "major library" zealots would label this "cheating."

>
> A clear admission of defeat.
>
> > Backwards as usual.

>
> Yup, wherever possible in the test code plain js should be replaced
> with the equivalent library functionality, it's supposed to be testing
> the library, not POJS.


Ideally, in the "real world" where Javascript "won't work" without
lots of extraneous nonsense. I mean, be fair. How can bloated,
inefficient scripts hope to compete with... Oh, that was the
argument, wasn't it?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Michaux
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2009
David Mark wrote:

> Should also be obvious that modern browsers have converged over the
> last few years (even IE at this point), so the idea of a magic
> compatibility leveler is as outdated as the inferences made by these
> scripts.


I think this is an overstatement. At the very least, multi-browser
event and XHR normalization libraries are still a practical approach
when programming for the general web.

Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
delete .NET FRAMEWORK 1.1 before installing .NET FRAMEWORK 2 ???? moi ASP .Net 3 09-26-2008 02:19 PM
Installing 1.1 Framework and 2.0 Framework on the same web server Mark ASP .Net 4 11-17-2005 03:30 PM
spring framework versus struts framework jrefactors@hotmail.com Java 2 09-11-2005 09:54 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM
COMInterop does not work in Framework 1.1 without Framework 1.0 Anatoly Volodko ASP .Net 1 08-14-2003 08:11 PM



Advertisments