[bumblebird]

Write your own specific tests if you suspect bias.

I doubt there is any real bias though, js libs have different aims. Some aim to have complete browser support at the expense of speed+size, some assume a certain level of browser, and so come in much faster.

The fastest lib though is always going to be no lib. It's far easier to optimize your own code.

[nkohari]

The fastest lib though is always going to be no lib.

This is only true if you already know all of the performance hacks in each browser. By using a library, you can outsource the need to worry about that to a third party. Also, only about 5% of your code is ever going to underperform, so deciding to not use a library means you're wasting time on the other 95%.

[etherealG]

why would someone right their own tests when all they're trying to do is point out why the current ones are flawed.

[bumblebird]

To see if it performs better for their particular use case?

You know, choosing something based on how well it fits the problem?

[peregrine]

Why should he write his own tests? Jquery has proven performance and reliability where as all rightJS has are objectionable tests.

[bumblebird]

It depends on your use case. I don't think you should be against something just because you have a solution you assume is the best it can be.