On: You might not need jQuery

[lowboy]

Care to substantiate your benchmark where you compare jQ1, jQ2, and the native DOM API?

[LukeShu → lowboy]

Here is the mentioned pull request: https://github.com/jashkenas/backbone/pull/2959

Here is his benchmark: http://jsperf.com/backbone-patch-22be8f9/2

It only compares jQuery 1 and the DOM API, no jQuery 2.

    TestBaseView: DOM API
    TestPaulView: Reduced jQuery usage
    TestView: jQuery

[lowboy → LukeShu]

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.

[wyuenho → lowboy]

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

[lowboy → wyuenho]

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.

[jhenahan → lowboy]

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

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

[lowboy → jhenahan]

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

[wyuenho → LukeShu]

Yep that's it. You can replicate this benchmark and replace jq1 with jq2 to see how much faster it gets. You'll be disappointed.