
RightJS Version 1.5.0 Is Out - IgorPartola
http://rightjs.org/blog/version-1-5-0-is-out
======
felixge
This is the stuff they are benchmarking for:

[http://github.com/MadRabbit/taskspeed/blob/master/tests/jq-t...](http://github.com/MadRabbit/taskspeed/blob/master/tests/jq-
tests.js)

There is literally no isolation between what is being tested and how much
performance goes into unrelated operations.

Example: The test for the bind operation executes the "ul > li" selector
before performing the bind, thus the results are affected by this.

I could be wrong, but it seems like a benchmark specifically tailored to the
benefit of RightJS and it provides no indication for overall performance of
RightJS based applications.

RightJS might be wicked fast for all I know, but this test suite is not going
to convince me.

~~~
bumblebird
Write your own specific tests if you suspect bias.

I doubt there is any real bias though, js libs have different aims. Some aim
to have complete browser support at the expense of speed+size, some assume a
certain level of browser, and so come in much faster.

The fastest lib though is always going to be no lib. It's far easier to
optimize your own code.

~~~
etherealG
why would someone right their own tests when all they're trying to do is point
out why the current ones are flawed.

~~~
bumblebird
To see if it performs better for their particular use case?

You know, choosing something based on how well it fits the problem?

------
qeorge
I like that there's innovation in the space, but there's a couple things about
this library that bother me:

\- Namespacing is horrible. I've found several global objects it declares,
like Browser. Not cool.

\- As others have noted, it has no notes on what browsers it supports. IIRC,
the thing slowing down sizzle the most is having to support older browsers.
There's certainly cases where the browser is predictable, but for everyday use
I'll stick with jQ.

[Edit: Supports / targeted for IE8, FF3.5, Opera 10, and Chrome out of the
box. I went straight to rightjs.org, and missed the note. Thanks Igor!]

\- Extends the prototypes of basic objects, like String, Array, even Object.

~~~
IgorPartola
I agree with you completely. I looked through the API and jQuery is much
cleaner in that sense. However, I think it's great that someone is squeezing
extra performance out of JS.

Also, from the linked article:

"First, all the old browser patches and hacks were moved in a separated
dynamically loadable module. The core by itself now focuses on the modern
browsers support, meaningly FF >=3.5, IE >=8 Opera >10=, Safari 3,4, Google
Chrome, while the old browsers support module handles IE6,7, Konqueror and old
versions of Opera and FF."

~~~
qeorge
Thanks Igor, I went directly to rightjs.org and was unable to find this info.
Should have looked on the blog.

~~~
IgorPartola
No problem.

------
bdfh42
Methinks the speed gain was at the expense of cross browser support.

Not supporting the majority of installed browsers is an interesting approach
to web application development.

~~~
bumblebird
It depends what your writing, and your target market. Most people using
webapps/modern websites are doing so with good recent browsers.

~~~
seiji
[citation needed]

Are you related to the project somehow? You seem to be vigorously defending
it, but I see no affiliation mentioned (and your profile here is blank).

~~~
bumblebird
How is my above comment defending it? :/ I actually extremely rarely use any
js libs. I'd rather just do it myself. And no I'm nothing to do with the
project.

------
ErrantX
The title is a bit baited... nowhere in the linked page (or benchmarks) do
they make the specific claim in the title.

~~~
IgorPartola
Based on overall comparison for Safari (6x) and Chrome (8x):

<http://rightjs.org/images/benchmarks/safari.png>
<http://rightjs.org/images/benchmarks/chrome.png>

I admit this is very crude calculation but it is clear that (according to
these tests only) RightJS is much faster than jQuery.

~~~
ErrantX
I know; I just feel that as RightJS hasnt made this claim it's unfair to make
it for them :) reading the blog they wanted to focus on other great
features/additions/improvements.

(the main problem is it reads like bait: which is why all the
negative/reactionary comments are appearing :))

------
collint
It's not entirely fair comparing to to 1.3.2

jQuery has made some gains in 1.3.3 and even more in the 1.4 alpha.

~~~
jeroen
Why not? Comparing current versions seems fair to me.

~~~
collint
jQuery 1.3.2 is not the most recent stable version.

jQuery alphas and betas are quite stable. The 1.4 alpha passes all current
tests in all browsers.

That's a big selling point for jQuery. I'd much rather see talking points
about the robustness of the development and QA process of various projects.

Also, the quick turnover for the "fastest" JavaScript library makes speed a
fairly useless metric for comparing JavaScript libraries. Even if I was so
concerned with speed I'd much rather see a comparison of the versions I'd
likely put into production if I started a greenfield project today.

