jeresig

38 ms·

271.
by jeresig 18y ago
Thanks for the post - glad people are enjoying it! This is a demo/mock-up that I made to test a new game concept. I'm in the process of working with a designer to turn it in to a full-fledged game (with iPhone and Facebook versions, as well
272.
by jeresig 18y ago
I think you may be slightly confused. Processing is (historically) a visualization programming language ( http://processing.org/ - implemented in Java). Processing.js is simply a port of that language to JavaScript, implemented as a JavaSc
273.
by jeresig 18y ago
For context, here's the previous discussion from when Processing.js was released: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=185191 and the discussion from when jQuery 1.3 (and, thus, Sizzle) was released: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43
274.
by jeresig 18y ago
A couple years ago I actually wrote a sort of meta language on top of jQuery (sort of a combination between jQuery and Python). http://ejohn.org/apps/jquery2/ Be sure to view the source and look for: script type="text/jquery".
275.
by jeresig 18y ago
I don't think so - there are so many bizarre DOM cross-browser issues out there. In fact, I did a whole presentation (at Yahoo!) concerning this very topic: http://ejohn.org/blog/the-dom-is-a-mess/
276.
by jeresig 18y ago
"There's nothing hacky/quirky about comet... long polling XHR." Now, unless I'm misinformed, long polling XHR does not work in Internet Explorer, although you do list it as a supported platform: http://wiki.mibbit.com/index.php/Platforms
277.
by jeresig 18y ago
That sounds like a problem with the test suites themselves, not TestSwarm or any sort of execution mechanism. For jQuery's test suite we've put a lot of work into making sure that the tests run stable and the results are easily repeatable.
278.
by jeresig 18y ago
> What's to stop people just inserting bad test results? Seems like it could be really unreliable/dirty/bogus data. Pretty easy, just run the tests more than once (on more than one client). If you get caught giving bad data then you get
279.
by jeresig 18y ago
> If you are going to do do any serious analysis of timing or performance then you are going to have to control the machines. Absolutely - the timing and performance won't be more accurate but it will be more realistic. For accuracy eve
280.
by jeresig 18y ago
> I don't understand the requirement for adding new browsers 'instantly and on-demand'. Because the major JavaScript libraries' timetables should not be bound by how willing they are to twiddle config files/write new browser loaders in
281.
by jeresig 18y ago
> Doh, yes Selenium Grid uses Selenium. And the argument about no major JS using Selenium is not an argument to not use it. Sure it is. If a developer will never switch to Selenium then Selenium Grid (in its current state) is useless. T
282.
by jeresig 18y ago
> "Yes, it’s true that a team at Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better. I had a recent debate over whether a border should be 3, 4 or 5 pixels wide, and
283.
by jeresig 18y ago
Things should be better now - we were getting a ridiculous number of requests. Let me know if you're still having problems, though.
284.
by jeresig 18y ago
We maintain all of the element data (including events, etc.) in an internal data store. We attach a single expando to an element - whose name is randomly generated (this allows jQuery to, not only, co-exist with other libraries but also to
285.
by jeresig 18y ago
In our tests it seems as if an input's .enabled property gets messed up if it's inside of a display:none element. This causes some tests to fail in our suite. This may be the only problem, but we'll have to wait for beta 2 to find out.
286.
by jeresig 18y ago
You can take a look at the event fixing code here: http://dev.jquery.com/browser/trunk/jquery/src/event.js#L285 There's really not much to it - and it's really not much different from the code that you show above. A lot has changed since
287.
by jeresig 18y ago
Glad you're enjoying it so much! As to the points you mention: "event normalization is slow in IE" Do you have any information on this? This should've gotten faster in 1.3 - but it's definitely something that we would want to improve, if th
288.
by jeresig 18y ago
We want to make sure there's some nice candy for those who upgrade. Getting people to upgrade can be tricky - we do our best to reduce any outstanding bugs (1.3.1 and 1.3.2 have helped here) but having a carrot on the end of the stick helps
289.
by jeresig 18y ago
"(though I really wish jQuery would bundle an onAvailable method into the core.)" Why? (Serious question - I'm the creator of jQuery.)
290.
by jeresig 18y ago
No. This is by a team in Mozilla Labs - including Ben and Dion (founders of Ajaxian.com), Kevin Dangoor (creator of TurboGears), and Joe Walker (creator of DWR).
291.
by jeresig 18y ago
To respond to some of your specific points: > "It sounds like jQuery's CSS selector engine prior to Sizzle wasn't all that good either." jQuery's old selector engine was (and is) faster than MooTools - especially so for selectors that d
292.
by jeresig 18y ago
Hmm, I'm really not sure what the issue is, off-hand. It doesn't seem like you're hugely interested - but this is definitely what libraries are for (making annoyingly complex interactions like this possible). The jQuery UI Draggables are qu
293.
by jeresig 18y ago
Yep - but at the same time, it's not like I could've provided better data or more information - they have yet to release any code (and it's not even going to be in Opera 10 - so who knows if it'll even be out in 2009). I don't like working
294.
by jeresig 18y ago
new Function() /may/ work - but that's only if a browser actually parses the code when you pass it in to the function. Maybe a browser is lazy and only parses it when it's executed for the first time? (I know that's what I'd probably do.) O
295.
by jeresig 18y ago
I think that the Firefox codebase is a lot of things. It's been around for a while, for sure. There's cruft - definitely. It's also being actively stripped of its cruft and being actively improved. I think a lot of people are coming to disc
296.
by jeresig 18y ago
I've actually written about JavaScript benchmark quality before: http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-benchmark-quality/ (I've since re-written Dromaeo - and the current version that's live is taking in to account all the problems that I outl
297.
by jeresig 18y ago
The full presentation and slides can be found over here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=462970
298.
by jeresig 18y ago
Heh, yeah, I'm almost certain that I'm just wrong in my interpretation - I may know JavaScript but I'm still a neural network newb. I've updated that paragraph to, hopefully, be a little more correct.
299.
by jeresig 18y ago
You'll need to wait for this final release candidate of UI 1.6 to come first. UI 1.5.x depends upon jQuery 1.2.x and UI 1.6.x depends upon jQuery 1.3.x.
300.
by jeresig 18y ago
All of that is detailed in the release notes: http://docs.jquery.com/Release:jQuery_1.3#Changes So far most people have had no problems upgrading.

More ›