D
David Mark
I wondered why I was suddenly getting emails about an old jQuery
review.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=626975
Looking at the first comment:
"As for performance, he points out a lot of things like "creating tons
of functions on the fly" and "instantiating new objects for
everything", but he doesn't actually prove that any of these points
cause performance issues. It should be as simple as rewriting the code
to get rid of these 'obvious' deficiencies and then benchmarking it.
Which this person has not done."
No need to benchmark whether not doing something is faster than doing
it. You get to a point where you can spot inefficient patterns and
jQuery's are right out front.
I didn't do it, but others have validated my opinions about jQuery's
performance (or lack thereof) with easy-to-read charts:
http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/report/charts.html
"I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work
on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on
his shoulder."
Of course. Presented with concrete evidence, trust somebody you don't
know over somebody else you don't know. Stranger still, there is
plenty of evidence that trusting Resig is a ridiculous proposition.
On the contrary, it is always best to assume he is wrong. He's been
in here a couple of times and was booed off the stage.
And who cares what Mozilla is paying him to do? What do a JavaScript
Evangelist's duties entail anyway?
The next one starts out:
"All this link says to me is that the people who hang in
comp.lang.javascript are all a bunch of smug pricks."
Right, jQuery's bugs and other shortcomings are irrelevant next to
misgivings about a newsgroup. Anyone care to praise jQuery and lift
this stigma?
review.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=626975
Looking at the first comment:
"As for performance, he points out a lot of things like "creating tons
of functions on the fly" and "instantiating new objects for
everything", but he doesn't actually prove that any of these points
cause performance issues. It should be as simple as rewriting the code
to get rid of these 'obvious' deficiencies and then benchmarking it.
Which this person has not done."
No need to benchmark whether not doing something is faster than doing
it. You get to a point where you can spot inefficient patterns and
jQuery's are right out front.
I didn't do it, but others have validated my opinions about jQuery's
performance (or lack thereof) with easy-to-read charts:
http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/report/charts.html
"I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work
on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on
his shoulder."
Of course. Presented with concrete evidence, trust somebody you don't
know over somebody else you don't know. Stranger still, there is
plenty of evidence that trusting Resig is a ridiculous proposition.
On the contrary, it is always best to assume he is wrong. He's been
in here a couple of times and was booed off the stage.
And who cares what Mozilla is paying him to do? What do a JavaScript
Evangelist's duties entail anyway?
The next one starts out:
"All this link says to me is that the people who hang in
comp.lang.javascript are all a bunch of smug pricks."
Right, jQuery's bugs and other shortcomings are irrelevant next to
misgivings about a newsgroup. Anyone care to praise jQuery and lift
this stigma?