The best possible way? Well, that's not true at all. In fact, that was even faster* than whatever method this article was talking about (genDom).
Either way, my point wasn't to say 'just toss it all over to jQuery!' My point was, if you think this technique is cool, you're probably using jQuery and you could've been doing this for years. Years!
Anyhow, this is a huge deflection from what I was really trying to convey. Basically, I don't think this (the 'sugared dom' method from the article) is solving anything. HTML should define your markup and JS should just be filling in the blanks (and not creating them).
*Please note that I do realize my DOM creation was particularly minimal (however, hardly differing from the 'sugared dom' test mentioned in the article) and is hardly a sufficient test. Really, I just wanted to show that you'd have to be doing a ridiculous amount of DOM manipulation to see any significant drop in performance.
The best possible way? Well, that's not true at all. In fact, that was even faster* than whatever method this article was talking about (genDom).
Either way, my point wasn't to say 'just toss it all over to jQuery!' My point was, if you think this technique is cool, you're probably using jQuery and you could've been doing this for years. Years!
Anyhow, this is a huge deflection from what I was really trying to convey. Basically, I don't think this (the 'sugared dom' method from the article) is solving anything. HTML should define your markup and JS should just be filling in the blanks (and not creating them).
*Please note that I do realize my DOM creation was particularly minimal (however, hardly differing from the 'sugared dom' test mentioned in the article) and is hardly a sufficient test. Really, I just wanted to show that you'd have to be doing a ridiculous amount of DOM manipulation to see any significant drop in performance.