You might not need jQuery

Re:You might not need jQuery by lowboy on Friday January 31, 2014 @02:09AM (#7155710)

Hmm, I'm wary of a test that involves another framework to test the underlying jQ v. Native DOM performance difference. I'd be much more comfortable eliminating Backbone from the equation.

Also, this is just one test - wyuenho's claim was for jQ vs. the DOM in general, which is a much broader claim than an unknown subset of functionality.

I don't doubt that native DOM methods are faster than jQ, but I like claims to be backed up by evidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You might not need jQuery by wyuenho on Friday January 31, 2014 @02:47AM (#7155806)

The evidence is in the form of an experiment repeatable from your browser's dev console. Play with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You might not need jQuery by lowboy on Friday January 31, 2014 @07:49PM (#7160309)

If you hand me some code to run, I'll run it. Otherwise my test risks not being the same one that you used to make the claim.

The onus is on the person making the claim, not the person trying to verify it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You might not need jQuery by jhenahan on Friday January 31, 2014 @10:09PM (#7160692)

Isn't the code to run here[1]?

[1]: http://jsperf.com/backbone-patch-22be8f9/2

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You might not need jQuery by lowboy on Sunday February 02, 2014 @08:43PM (#7168406)

See my previous comment[0]. That perf test is testing Backbone's use of jQ vs. native DOM, not jQ v. DOM in isolation. I don't trust that there aren't side effects and interactions in the test.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7155710

[ Parent | on HN ]