- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:24:37 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:35:24 +0200, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote: >>> The shortest name should represent the most efficient method imho. >> >> Crazy notion, names should be clear, not short for efficiency. > > The point was that if the more efficient one of the two actually had a > longer name, people would probably use the shorter name and just take > the first node using [0] or whatever can be used for that in their > language binding. I agree that is a risk, though not really a huge concern. Convenience methods are often slower than more complex syntax. Once a script gets so slow that performance matters (which often never is the case when it comes to web scripts) then they could switch to the more optimized methods. All we'd need to do for this to work is to describe in the spec which method is likely to be faster. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 22:24:48 UTC