4 ms·

You're comparing linux, to jQuery. Please...

• cookiecaper 17y ago
  I agree that there's different levels of complexity there, but the same principles apply. jQuery is non-trivial. It's been worked on and improved for years. There are many big-time users of it. There are many who spend lots of time developing for it. It's fast and regularly tested for fastness. Its speed improves in each release. It's easily extensible and easily modifiable. It's not abstracting anything major and there is no major speed hit in using it. It seems that this argument can't be solved without additional data, but if we assume that Facebook's custom library is the same speed or even somewhat faster than an implementation of the same based on jQuery, what advantage is there in the custom library? jQuery would be better here. The only time Facebook's custom library would be better is if it was several orders of magnitude faster than it would have been if it had been implemented with jQuery. I would be very surprised if it were, but it's not outside of the realm of possibility, I guess. That's our point of contention here. You think that jQuery is slower by default and I think it's faster by default. Does anyone know of any data to help corroborate one of these points?
  • axod 17y ago
    >> "Its speed improves in each release." This should worry you. It does me. http://blog.jquery.com/2008/06/04/jquery-126-events-100-faster/ http://blog.jquery.com/2008/06/04/jquery-126-events-100-fast... >> Event Handling is 103% Faster >> CSS Selectors are 13% faster >> .css() is 25% faster etc. Each to their own, but checkout the source code, and checkout writing javascript without any library. If speed matters, or large scale, or custom things, etc then it's not an odd decision to write the javascript code yourself.