Very good ;)

http://code.google.com/p/idquery/

It is the fastest and lightest ever created.

He has yet to be tested, and it may lack some selectors …
bye

But again, with Javascript, the results of any benchmark is heavily tied to variables outside of the framework being tested. Therefore they can only be guides and not definitive.

Plus, if NWMatcher is meant to supplement existing frameworks then it is irrelevant how it performs “against” those very same frameworks. Especially since its speed gains come from a heavily defined set of circumstances it deals with as opposed to the wide range that most frameworks have to deal with.

But hey, it adds to the development community, therefore excellent!

How does jquery.concrete deal with state? Does it encourage attaching data to DOM elements?

However, for application driven development, this is “swing and miss”. In application driven development I want objects that drive HTML, not HTML that drives itself. This also creates NON reusable code, as your js will be fixed to the DOM of the current project.

See this as it is, as a tool (like jQuery) to modify and structure code for DOM behaviour alone. Do not see this as a framework for general code structuring and/or architecturing. There are other frameworks for that, this one just fills a niche.

All said and done, I find this a quite smart implementation of inheritance to DOM behaviour and keeping that beast contained in it’s own environment. Although, it does have area’s which cause more confusion then clarity and this requires an extensive API documentation.

Great idea! The speed of testing a selector on an element is very important in your API, and jquery.selector.matches code is excellent, the compilation is probably the best method for a CSS selector. currently
I believe there are only domQuery (extjs), which partly uses this technique.

Viva cascading script sheets !!! ;o)

The contextual element of all selector test is document, but in the css, a class can be assigned to an element, which would reduce the execution time of the test …

Also, I think it would have been better to create a special attribute, type ‘jscss’ with the same syntax that attribute ‘class’, but who reference the functions name, which itself, incorporate selectors with an property.

Should reconsider things for use, but the essential is there and is very promising.

kimoja

Yeah, for many plugins this may be overkill – it’s up to you do decide if the extra features are worth the size increase. Concrete was developed while working on a complex webapp, and that’s the space where I see it’s advantages carrying most weight.

As for performance numbers, there’s the speed test file in the selector source repo. I’ve just made it available without checking out the code here: http://hafriedlander.github.com/jquery.selector/speed.html

It should be noted that the speed gains are because I’m focusing solely on optimizing for Concrete’s use case – Selector is designed to augment Sizzle, not replace it.

@AWebDev

As ratbeard said, the onclick attributes in the tutorial are there for clarity, not best practice. In real code you’d use Concrete’s unobtrusive onclick handling.

@BCrescimanno

I guess you might run into situations where code reuse is hard, but we haven’t come across them yet. As ratbeard suggests you can use a descriptive class (‘.accordian’ is used in the tutorial). If you don’t like descriptive classes, I can think of a couple of other ways to reuse code, although this isn’t really the right place to discuss them. Open up a discussion on the google group if you’d like to talk about it more.

Of course, those kinds of tests only mean so much considering your computer, the browser and apparently the server you use is a huge part of the outcome.

> I thought it might be a step backwards with the use of onclick attributes 0_0 .

Those events could have been attached unobtrusively, I think he used onclick to make it more clear what the buttons were doing for the tutorial.

> in order to reuse the same functionality in multiple areas of the page, you’d need to attach code using an identical CSS selector. But if the functionality is the same and the style is very different I could see this leading to either code duplication or some odd CSS trickery.

If this turns out to be an issue, you could assign an extra element class to be used by concrete which wont be styled, almost like giving it a type. Adding in that layer of indirection lets you change your elements structure, if necessary.

Plus, I failed to see a source cited for the claim that this new selector engine is faster than Sizzle by an order of magnitude, for the patterns it is designed for that is. I don’t discount it, I just like to see an example supporting statements like that.