webuiarchitect

Today's? Like it used work perfectly otherwise? Huh!

Those counts actually includes hits by the spiders, too.

He is smart; not crazy!!

Isn't that very (very) old? I remember seeing it long back

Utterly rubbish!

I couldn't agree more with https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=147321#p147321; one of the greatest opinions on programming. Some of the things he mentioned might be extreme; but his concerns are damn right.

Hahaha! Very true. Plus you should be lucky enough not to have a spouse hanging around your neck all the time questioning your every move and asking for justification.

That's what I was saying all the time

What??

Looking at all these comments. I see, people like to argue a lot; some of them just for the sake of it. I think we should always read an article from the writer's point of view. That won't suppress all our mismatched feelings but will certainly reduce it to a great extent.

Check out Next Big Sound

Thanks @faramarz a lot for the try. I cannot say that it doesn't work; it definitely does. The thing is, this solution cannot be accepted as generic. I couldn't explain all the conditions in the twitter post; my mistake. But it was rather a sarcastic post. If someone would want to try for a generic solution: 1) Horizontal centering isn't necessary. So let the DIV width occupy all the available width. 2) The height cannot be fixed. The content can vary.

I doubt if there exist any solution to this. My point is, if we are talking about Clones, Moon, Rocket Science and HTML5, a simple thing like this is not possible even today. If CSS can offer margin: 0 auto; why can't it offer something to align elements vertically center? May be, margin: auto 0;???

@faramarz, once again, thank you very much for spending time on this.

When I have multiple application windows open on my desktop, tiled one over another, more often I happen to close the wrong application by accident. Does this happen with you as well? Regardless, please vote http://poll.fm/25gyx

:) That's funny, but I guess I can find or develop something myself to block it on phone level.

That's not a valid fear, I guess. Even normally you might miss those so called emergency calls - (1) You are in a meeting and your phone is on silent (2) You had few long chats over phone with friends/clients and your battery is dead (3) You are in a very crowded place or traveling and just couldn't hear your phone ringing (very common) (4) You obviously don't carry your phone in the bathroom; do you? At least, I don't. (5) And other technical/non-technical scenarios I can't think of right now.

Also about these emergency situations, can you think of the number of times, you actually received these kind of calls? In last 8 years, I can't think of any. And let's say, even if there were couple of them, I think it is unreasonable to consider that 0.001% probability. In that case, you already have enough from the above 5 points to worry about.

Precisely my thinking.

Sounds good

Makes perfect sense

There is a lot to learn; may be more for Google itself than anybody else.

I didn't like the post title, though. Celebrate others' failures?

Nickolas Zakas' Slideshare presentation mainly covers the four areas of performance and goes deep into it, while my aim was to cover as many aspects as possible (not restricting it only to JavaScript) and add brief description wherever I could. Also, when we talk about performance, we usually talk about milliseconds - so if doing something shows even slightest improvement on at least one of the browser (e.g. accessing object properties by dot notation works faster on Safari and doesn't make difference on other browsers), it helps in keeping a watch on that practice. Even JSLint does the same.

That's correct. Thanks a lot. Updated the blog with the correct example (using function). I was testing on Chrome and even your examples showed better results with value of variable 'a' to 1000, although slightly. Firefox shows no difference.

Another thing, JavaScript 1.7 has introduced block level scopes.. you can achieve that by using the 'let' keyword instead of 'var' to declare a variable. Although most browsers don't support it yet.

Amazing. Very optimized and smooth.

for-loop does create a scope. In fact, every statement block is a scope in itself.

In your examples, just change the value of variable 'a' to 100 or 1000 and you will see the difference.

We are talking about performance optimization here; which means 'what will work faster' over conventional approaches. Every time the scripting engine doesn't find a variable in the local scope, it starts searching for it upwards until it reaches global namespace. And this, my friend, costs CPU cycles. Now consider this out-of-scope variable being used in a loop. Closure is a power JavaScript has given us to use it wisely; and not to misuse.

Updated the blog with some explanation on why TABLEs for layout is not a good idea. Please recheck.

Thanks for all the valuable feedback. I have updated the post by adding little explanation to most of the points there to justify each concern. And have revised a couple of points. Please feel free to comment further. Please revisit http://www.webuiarchitect.com/30-best-practices-to-boost-you... to see the changes.

You are right, Subbu. Rails is nothing but common sense; it leaves developers only to do development and nothing else.

Yes, it is a random list.

No Geuis. Setting innerHTML works faster than DOM methods. Please test.