3 ms·
The Cappucino version appears to be about 400 lines of Javascript. So the jQuery one is 1/8th the size. Although I doubt the Cappucino version was written wit
by subwindow 18y ago
The Cappucino version appears to be about 400 lines of Javascript. So the jQuery one is 1/8th the size.
Although I doubt the Cappucino version was written with line count in mind.
- boucher 18y agoIt wasn't. But, it also contains 0 lines of HTML and 0 lines of CSS, while the jQuery demo has about 200 lines of CSS on top of its 50 lines of jQuery.
- maximilian 18y agoI was going to say that if you're going to compare lines of apples to lines of oranges, you should at least include all the lines of apples that you wrote.
- bootload 18y ago"... But, it also contains 0 lines of HTML and 0 lines of CSS, while the jQuery demo has about 200 lines of CSS on top of its 50 lines of jQuery ..." There are a lot of advantages of having this layering (usability, degradable functionality). The biggest problem I see is network latency and rendering appears slower while HTML loads progressively. What are the pro arguments in favour of removing this layer? The biggest (pro) argument I can think of is reliability in construction, cost & development speed. Less to worry about reliably piecing together sites with css/html.
- tlrobinson 18y ago"The biggest problem I see is network latency and rendering appears slower while HTML loads progressively." This isn't so much of a problem for the types of applications Cappuccino is intended for: long running applications, rather than transient web pages. In fact, in some cases 280 Slides launches faster than PowerPoint or Keynote. Uncached I often see load times of about 3 seconds. Cached is about half that.
- bootload 18y ago"... This isn't so much of a problem for the types of applications Cappuccino is intended for: long running applications, rather than transient web pages. ..." Good point I totally missed this.