Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
RightJS Version 1.5.0 Is Out (rightjs.org)
16 points by IgorPartola 2846 days ago | hide | past | web | 22 comments | favorite



This is the stuff they are benchmarking for:

http://github.com/MadRabbit/taskspeed/blob/master/tests/jq-t...

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.


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.


The fastest lib though is always going to be no lib.

This is only true if you already know all of the performance hacks in each browser. By using a library, you can outsource the need to worry about that to a third party. Also, only about 5% of your code is ever going to underperform, so deciding to not use a library means you're wasting time on the other 95%.


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


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

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


Why should he write his own tests? Jquery has proven performance and reliability where as all rightJS has are objectionable tests.


It depends on your use case. I don't think you should be against something just because you have a solution you assume is the best it can be.


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.


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."


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


No problem.


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.


They do seem to support older browsers: just as loadable modules. I am not opposed to the idea that the library runs different code on different browsers to get the job done if I get the same result and a performance gain out. On the other hand it's not code that I would want to debug.


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


[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).


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.


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


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.


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 :))


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.


Why not? Comparing current versions seems fair to me.


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.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: