[timmywil]

The tests don't make sense. jQuery is not an MVC framework and should not be tested as if it were. It's worth noting that both Backbone and Angular use some version of jQuery (lite or otherwise), so comparing that to your own way of using jQuery doesn't correlate. I could use jQuery to append elements in a way that was much faster than and just as short as what you've done in your test. Also, did you know you can append image elements with events using document.appendChild? It must be a security issue! But seriously, don't even include it in the tests. It is a JavaScript library that serves a lower-level purpose than MVC frameworks.

[JetSpiegel]

It has reached the point where Javascript Framework coders don't know Javascript.

Looks like Javascript IS the Assembly of the Web.

[mkaziz]

I consider myself a JS-person, but if I were honest, I speak jQuery/backbone, not pure Javascript.

[nawitus]

But DOM is separate from JavaScript.

[hmsimha]

DOM is separate from Ecmascript, but is actually one of the 3 components of Javascript (along with Ecmascript and the BOM). This is at least according to Professional Javascript for Web Developers (you can see it on 'page 3' in the Amazon preview).

[nawitus]

The sources I've read (Douglas Crockford or Wikipedia) clearly state that DOM is separate from JavaScript.

[JetSpiegel]

Only theoretically.

Javascript is a way to manipulate the DOM, no matter whan those nutters who run it on servers say.

[nawitus]

Nope, it's the truth. You can have JavaScript without the DOM in a Node.js or a CouchDB environment, for example.

[hmsimha]

I would say that what node.js runs is ecmascript with it's own API that differs from the DOM. It's called javascript for convenience, but then what separates javascript from ecmascript?

[swang]

Nothing. It is only different in name. Oracle owns the actual copyright on JavaScript via Sun. ECMAscript was used so the ECMA would not have to worry about this.