SV: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer

[Bart B. <ba...@ho...>]

No , this will not speed up things at all...
doing:

Class.prototype.method=3Dfunction(){ }
 OR
function method(){ }
Class.prototype.method=3Dmethod
  OR
Class.prototype.method=3Dfunction method() { }

is essentially the same speed wise.
What you are doing is assigning a reference to a function in either =
case.  Whether it has a name or exists previously or not is unimportant. =

It is still a reference.

(oh.. and I tested this just to be sure... did an avarage of about 10000 =
calls =3D=3D no noticable difference)

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr=E5n: Jordi - IlMaestro - Ministral <jmi...@or...>
Till: dyn...@li... =
<dyn...@li...>
Datum: den 16 februari 2001 14:23
=C4mne: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer


>Speed optimization can always be introduced. In fact, the latest =
precreation
>code that caused some old bugs to reappear and some people to complain =
about the
>API going backwards was introduced in order to speed up layer creation,
>something that was not a problem until people started wanting hundreds, =
even
>thousands of layers onscreen.
>
>I've been tempted to suggest this many times but I didn't want to spawn =
another
>"code split-up" argument. Some critical methods like, say, moveTo or =
setSize
>might speed up by doing.:
>
>if(is.ns) DynLayer.prototype.moveTo =3D function A
>else DynLayer.prototype.moveTo =3D function B
>
>I'll try myself in see what happens
>
>Pascal wrote:
>
>> me again :)
>>
>> I don't think this test is really useable.
>> Your current Tcanvas code misses ALOT of things DynLayer takes care =
of.
>>
>> DynLayer sets sizes, z-index,clipping,bgimages in initialisation (and =
also a
>> few other style properties.. note that setting a style property is =
what
>> slows everything down)  I once did some optimization tricks to the =
dynlayer,
>> by removing sizes/clipping etc.. this speeds up things BIG TIME, but =
also
>> brakes useability for a large amount of widgets, and is less =
flexible.
>>
>> DynLayer has code included for fast child-creation.. even though =
there are
>> no child layers in your test, this code is still called (function =
calls).
>> This could be made faster in dynlayer, but for now is more readable =
for
>> developers.  Do another test with layers containing a large amount =
child
>> layers.. Dynlayer's precreation will probably be faster.
>>
>> shreded enough? ;)
>>
>> Pascal Bestebroer (pb...@oi...)
>> Software ontwikkelaar
>> Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
>> http://www.oibv.com
>>
>> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> > Van: dyn...@li...
>> > [mailto:dyn...@li...]Namens Eytan
>> > Heidingsfeld
>> > Verzonden: vrijdag 16 februari 2001 13:19
>> > Aan: Dynapi-Dev
>> > Onderwerp: [Dynapi-Dev] TCanvas vs. DynLayer
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd love to test performance one against the other. The only
>> > test I did was
>> > create 100 layers and check the times. In IE TCanvas was 200
>> > ms faster and
>> > in NS it was 1300(canvas) to 10000(dynlayer).
>> >
>> > I'd love you guys to start tearing my canvas to shreds.
>> >
>> > Included in the zip are:
>> > tcanvas.js
>> > browser.js
>> >
>> > they need to be included in the document(working on adding =
.include)
>> >
>> > 8an
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
>> Dyn...@li...
>> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dynapi-Dev mailing list
>Dyn...@li...
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>