3 ms·
No, actually I wasn't really interested in that yet. I wouldn't expect it to be that bad performance-wise, but if performance would be my goal, there'd be a num
by tjansen 13y ago
No, actually I wasn't really interested in that yet. I wouldn't expect it to be that bad performance-wise, but if performance would be my goal, there'd be a number of things I would have done differently.
I also guess that almost all sites the cost of parsing and executing the libraries is more significant than the actual runtime. I mean, there are sites that parse 200kb of ungzipped source code only to execute the 2 kb of them that are required to have some pull-down menus or sliders a couple of times.
- ggurgone 13y agoIn the real world preformance matters my friend. Personally I care more about that than 4kb vs 32 or 69 :P
- LocalPCGuy 13y agoI would make this a priority if you want to try to differentiate in something besides size as compared to jQuery. Performance is quite important, and I frequently find myself spending the time testing pure JS solutions compared to a jQuery solution to make sure my code is optimized. jQuery does a really good job in this regard most of the time, but there is always room for improvements.