3 ms·

2x-3x improvement is not "negligible" if you're doing heavy caching + js replacement. > Also, being slow in IE is a good thing. Maybe people will switch to a b

by teej 18y ago

2x-3x improvement is not "negligible" if you're doing heavy caching + js replacement. > Also, being slow in IE is a good thing. Maybe people will switch to a better browser. I'm going to assume you're kidding. > I also think it's a rare case where your bottle neck is speed of updating the dom. Don't forget that your average user isn't on a brand new 2.4GHz Macbook Pro. The average computer is -slow-. > IMHO, having clean non-ugly js code is more important in most cases. Something that's fast, predictable, readable, and one line seems great to me. Being w3c compliant has nothing to do with how "clean" or "non-ugly" it is. ------------------------------------------------------ I'm not trying to debate you because I like getting into silly syntax wars. I'm trying to point out that no matter how ugly, noncompliant, un "future proof" something is, doing the simplest thing that works now and in the foreseeable future shouldn't be vilified. In this case, innerHTML is, and still will for a while, be a great way to insert elements into the dom.

axod 18y ago
2x-3x is negligable when the overall time taken to build a 50x50 table is 30ms. I don't really care if it's 30ms or 60ms. Either is fast enough unless you're doing crazy masses of DOM manipulation. I wasn't kidding in the least about IE. IE is a small minority on my webapp, thank goodness. If they get a degraded user experience, then that's MS's problem to fix. "fast, predictable, readable, and one line" I guess you haven't got into all the issues with innerHTML. Tables, event handlers being borked, etc etc. html entities are ugly and have no place in code IMHO. I guess some of it also comes down to the fact of mixing languages. I'd much rather write javascript in a single file. Having HTML fragments dotted around the place is, in my view, very very ugly.
- carpo 18y ago
  If users get a degraded experience, I've always thought it was my responsibility to do what I could to make it better for them. If that means I can't read the code easily, then so be it.

by teej 18y ago

axod 18y ago

2x-3x is negligable when the overall time taken to build a 50x50 table is 30ms. I don't really care if it's 30ms or 60ms. Either is fast enough unless you're doing crazy masses of DOM manipulation. I wasn't kidding in the least about IE. IE is a small minority on my webapp, thank goodness. If they get a degraded user experience, then that's MS's problem to fix. "fast, predictable, readable, and one line" I guess you haven't got into all the issues with innerHTML. Tables, event handlers being borked, etc etc. html entities are ugly and have no place in code IMHO. I guess some of it also comes down to the fact of mixing languages. I'd much rather write javascript in a single file. Having HTML fragments dotted around the place is, in my view, very very ugly.

carpo 18y ago
If users get a degraded experience, I've always thought it was my responsibility to do what I could to make it better for them. If that means I can't read the code easily, then so be it.