<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JavaScript Performance: Comparing the Atlas and Prototype class idioms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ajaxian.com/archives/javascript-performance-comparing-the-atlas-and-prototype-class-idioms/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ajaxian.com/archives/javascript-performance-comparing-the-atlas-and-prototype-class-idioms</link>
	<description>Cleaning up the web with Ajax</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 07:43:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Russell</title>
		<link>http://ajaxian.com/archives/javascript-performance-comparing-the-atlas-and-prototype-class-idioms/comment-page-1#comment-2077</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://test.ajaxian.com/archives/javascript-performance-comparing-the-atlas-and-prototype-class-idioms#comment-2077</guid>
		<description>This is a frustrating comparison.

It appears to have been run inside a browser and not in the command line interpreters for each engine and so is not well isolated.

I&#039;m also not sure that it covers any of the important debates about writing quick code in a JS interpreter. The amount of time it takes to instantiate a class is a *pittance* compared to the memory cost difference between the tested approaches, and neither seem to actually hit the linearly-increasing object allocation speed issue on IE.

In short, it&#039;s a blind benchmark of the wrong attributes of the wrong idioms. DOM performance, regexp speed, string manipulation, and memory size stats actually matter since they dwarf object instantiation cost. I&#039;m afraid that this set of tests is merely a distraction.

Regards
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a frustrating comparison.</p>
<p>It appears to have been run inside a browser and not in the command line interpreters for each engine and so is not well isolated.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m also not sure that it covers any of the important debates about writing quick code in a JS interpreter. The amount of time it takes to instantiate a class is a *pittance* compared to the memory cost difference between the tested approaches, and neither seem to actually hit the linearly-increasing object allocation speed issue on IE.</p>
<p>In short, it&#8217;s a blind benchmark of the wrong attributes of the wrong idioms. DOM performance, regexp speed, string manipulation, and memory size stats actually matter since they dwarf object instantiation cost. I&#8217;m afraid that this set of tests is merely a distraction.</p>
<p>Regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

