News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Future of JavaScript MVCs.

Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by chrisege on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:10PM (#6937481)
Not to take away from the other points in your post, but on the benchmarks, the backbone example is writing to localStorage, while the om example isn't.

The overhead from localStorage appears to account for a significant chunk of the difference in performance. You can remove the localStorage calls with 'Backbone.sync = $.noop' or similar. After doing that and clearing localStorage, benchmark one drops to around 350ms, and benchmark 2 drops to around 2000ms.

Of course, benchmark 2 is where your library really shines, and backbone still takes its time with that one.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by swannodette on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:13PM (#6937501)
Not true, all Om timing information includes writing to localStorage. I just don't load the page from localStorage because that made benchmarking tedious for me.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Future of JavaScript MVCs by chrisege on Thursday December 19, 2013 @03:17PM (#6937534)
My mistake - i see that now. I think I lost sight of the single key for your example in with the hundreds of distinct keys from the backbone one.
[ Parent | on HN ]