Skip to content
Dayta! Get down!
Branch: master
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.
lib
.gitignore
Procfile
README.md
index.jade
index.js
package.json

README.md

AM Benchmarks

By far the most common question for AM's heavy use of attribute selectors (in particular the ~= selector) has been:

Wow, what a neat idea. This would solve a lot of my day to day problems writing CSS. You must be some kind of genius to come up with this. And so attractive! What a combo! Hey, what are you doing later?

ALSO I WILL NEVER USE AMCSS BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY SLOW KTHX

This surprised us, since selector performance hasn't been a real concern in our day-to-day work for a while. Front-end performance is a huge deal, of course, but CSS selectors appear to contribute such a minuscule amount to the total page load time that it didn't occur to us that it might be a major concern to many people.

So, what's the best way to alleviate those concerns? REAL DATA

Jake's excited too

Goals

Here's what I've tried to optimise for:

  • Repeatable - needs to be able to be run 100s of times with as consistent results as possible.
  • Targeted - needs to be showing variations in performance due to attribute selectors v class selectors, not from any other sources.
  • Realistic - needs to reflect real-world use-cases (live production sites if possible)
  • Proportional - should reflect the fact that CSS selectors contribute a small amount to total load time.

Methodology

Sucking at something is the first step at being sorta good at something

This is a first attempt, so there may be other ways to achieve these goals. But this seems to be working pretty well:

  • Fetch an arbitrary HTML page
  • Fetch all CSS included on that page
  • Rewrite the CSS & HTML to be AM-style (super naïvely)
  • Send it on down to the browser
  • See how fast it renders

In practice, a couple of things make sense:

  • Inline the CSS into the HTML: makes the response from the server much simpler, and reduces variability based on network conditions.
  • Strip out <script> tags: again, for simplicity. This sorta excludes fully JS-rendered apps, but there are enough sites out there to get data from so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Cache it all to hell: use a CDN so the tests are hitting cached versions of these pages from edge locations close to the test box - eliminates server processing time and reduces variability due to network performance.

So that's what I've done. Read the sourceto see how it all works.

YAYAGOGOGO

If you want to see it in action, look at these use cases:

Boostrap's landing page

The first, classes, is the same server but doesn't change the HTML/CSS at all. So that's our control. The second, attributes, does this:

- <div class='btn btn-small btn-primary'>
+ <div am-btn am-btn-small am-btn-primary>

- .btn { /* styles */ }
+ [btn] { /* styles */ }

It's naïve, as I said, so it's not the way AM would actually be written, but it should be enough to show the performance of the attribute selector versus the class selector.

The final option, values, uses the ~= selector much more heavily. It replaces:

- <div class='btn btn-small btn-primary'>
+ <div am-klass='btn btn-small btn-primary'>

- .btn { /* styles */ }
+ [am-klass~='btn'] { /* styles */ }

Again, this markup is dumb as a plank, but will be enough to show how much total reliance on the =~ selector changes your site's performance. Here are some other demo sites:

Facebook's landing page when you don't bother with a User-Agent

New York Times homepage

Results

WIP. Currently setting up a way to run, say, 100 tests on all three variants of a website, then collate and compare the results.

In the mean time, here's a GIF:

JAAAAAMES BAXTER

You can’t perform that action at this time.