[k3n]

Interesting, but I'm not sure how appropriate it is to be comparing it to jQuery in such a head-to-head fashion such as by saying "15x slower", etc. Does Dommy offer the same features (including the browser support) that jQuery does? If not, then you're just comparing apples to oranges, and it doesn't sound like it does (or even plans to) on account that it sounds like there are design decisions that separate the two with regards to the published API ("Inspired by jQuery, but adapted to be functional in order to better fit with ClojureScript core").

Also, wouldn't it be more accurate for the selector testing to actually test against Sizzle[1]?

Other features aren't even present in jQuery, such as templating, and so I'm not sure why you'd even compare that. Yes people can and do use templates with jQuery, but that's an implementation detail and is not a concern of the library itself; jQuery does not coerce or force you to use a slow templating system, and most any good templating system will also have a compilation step that is run at build-time. So yeah, you can take some ugly userland jQuery example code and make specific code that is faster..

1. https://github.com/jquery/sizzle

[connerp]

> Does Dommy offer the same features (including the browser support) that jQuery does?

No, currently Dommy has a smaller feature set that we think covers a majority of use cases, while maintaining reasonable browser support. Our general philosophy is to add functionality as we need it or others request it. I don't think this makes the comparison invalid. We're comparing the general use cases (selectors, basic dom manipulation, etc.) that any DOM library should have. Can you point out a specific comparison that doesn't apply because of api differences or browser support?

> wouldn't it be more accurate for the selector testing to actually test against Sizzle[1]?

Part of the point is to show that you can achieve the same elegant chaining-like syntax as jQuery without wrapping selections, so maintaining the wrapped jQuery selectors are important for comparison.

> Other features aren't even present in jQuery, such as templating, and so I'm not sure why you'd even compare that.

The point of the templating comparison is to show that macros can provide a significant performance boost while maintaining a sane syntax.

[k3n]

Isn't Dommy basically testing plain JS vs. jQuery at this point? That's kind of my point.

I'm also curious how well Dommy would perform in the 'real world'; seeing as everything is compiled down to plain JS, then the divide between library and implementation is removed. jQuery is a larger download hit on the first visit, but if it's already in cache (perhaps before they even reach your site) then the only code required to be downloaded is your app's specific implementation.

In the Dommy example for the templates, the jQuery code is 10 lines -- when formatted like generated.js (the equivalent Dommy code) and removing 2 unnecessary variable declarations. By contrast, generated.js is around 60 lines (giving you a few on account that there's some empty else-statements...). I know minification can do wonders, but the jQuery implementation is clearly going to be much fewer bytes. At what point does it eclipse the size of the jQuery lib itself? I guess that's up to usage.

If your library is the implementation, then it'd seem like you'd have a lot more data being sent over the wire, and likely more often as well on account of any changes to the Dommy which alters the output will have an effect on the cached files for each of them where that functionality was used. On the other hand, updating jQuery means only the 1 file has to be re-downloaded -- and not every userland implementation which uses the API.