[whatwg] HTML5 (including next generation additions still in development) - Mozilla Firefox (Not Responding)

Mike Wilcox mike at mikewilcox.net
Thu Aug 12 05:24:10 PDT 2010

I'm perplexed at the resistance. We've tried telling our clients not to use IE6, "IE8 is much faster". But inevitably, we have to make it work.

Mike Wilcox
mike at mikewilcox.net

On Aug 11, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> On 8/11/10 9:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On 8/11/10, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky at mit.edu>  wrote:
>>> On 8/11/10 11:48 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>> javascript:var start = new Date(); function f(n) { for (var k =
>>>> n.firstChild; k; k = n.nextSibling) f(k); } f(document); alert(new
>>>> Date() - start)
>>> Er, that had a typo.  The correct script is:
>>> javascript:var start = new Date(); function f(n) { for (var k =
>>> n.firstChild; k; k = k.nextSibling) f(k); } f(document); alert(new
>>> Date() - start);
>> My result is 1012
> In what browser?  Firefox 3.6?  (And presumably on reasonably slow hardware, if so.)
> If so, really do try 4.0 beta.  It's a good bit faster.
>> It's also highly contrived example. When you start doing any DOM
>> manipluation, particularly appending or removing nodes, you're going
>> to notice a lot larger times.
> Well, sure, but you also won't be walking the entire DOM in JS like this.  The HTML5 spec scripts sure don't, last I checked.
>>> Now the numbers are slightly larger; on the order of 230ms to 350ms.
>>> Barely above human lag-perception.  This is on a several-years-old
>>> laptop as hardware.
>> How do figure that's barely above human lag perception?
> The commonly accepted figure for when things start to feel laggy in UI terms is 200ms.  If someone clicks and nothing happens for more than 200ms then they perceive the response as slow.  Otherwise they generally perceive it as "pretty much instant".
> -Boris

More information about the whatwg mailing list