Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: jquery and hoi polloi
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 03:16:22 +0100
Organization: solani.org
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <m6aupe$esl$1@solani.org>
References: <svOdnVxF-e8OrePJnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au> <3e25f0fa-4c3f-4d51-a6a0-da69bd8b3677@googlegroups.com> <27938323-9eca-480c-8ead-2000865bcecc@googlegroups.com> <82684c28-b567-4b2c-8d2b-eb0c41376cd2@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: solani.org 1418264174 15253 eJwFwQkBACAIA8BKTHnjKLj+Ebyz7fAOdXM1GvtsZ1bMoV4oUVeegxmclQREFauHLwTV9gEnhhE1 (11 Dec 2014 02:16:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 02:16:14 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBgDAIA7CXBNaC5wgr/59ggqBx8hA8WGzE5lVTXih479r1YU+wvN+jbs2nB2TSpB8sQBHL
In-Reply-To: <82684c28-b567-4b2c-8d2b-eb0c41376cd2@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QRvFvrplgH5DigdcXeTAXYWsCec=
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwNwgERwDAIA0BLsATSyhkr+JfQ3X8gPT8xIxkT07JXa0rYuziNn+TwzUdmZ6Hcm1bOg2pcFG0QnQ==
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:26309

RobG wrote:

> Yes, jQuery isn't so bad for performance if used judiciously.

However, there are some cases where the perfomance of jQuery is really
bad.  These cases might not be relevant for the overall performance, but
nonetheless I won't call avoiding them micro-optimizations.  See for
instance <http://jsperf.com/document-getelementbyid-vs-jquery/3>.
What's wrong with using document.getElementById()?

> However, because many who use it have no idea what it's doing, they
> don't understand the performance risk until it becomes an issue.
> Often it's the result of using selectors based on complex DOM
> structures, fixing that later means virtually re-writing the
> application.

From my limited experience, not seldom it's just the matter of repeating
yourself.  Apparently, jQuery enforces this technique.  For instance:

  $(".foo .bar .baz").do_something();
  // ...
  $(".foo .bar .baz").do_something_else();

instead of:

  var elems = $(".foo .bar .baz");
  elems.do_something();
  // ...
  elems.do_something_else();

(I'm aware that the two snippets are not necessarily equivalent, but too
often they are.)

> Also, the mantra of "do more with less" doesn't necessarily deliver.
> Many seem to think that if they use jQuery, the equivalent POJS must
> be more code when likely it isn't.

"POJS"?  Plain old JavaScript?

-- 
Christoph M. Becker