> Does Dommy offer the same features (including the browser support) that jQuery does?
No, currently Dommy has a smaller feature set that we think covers a majority of use cases, while maintaining reasonable browser support. Our general philosophy is to add functionality as we need it or others request it. I don't think this makes the comparison invalid. We're comparing the general use cases (selectors, basic dom manipulation, etc.) that any DOM library should have. Can you point out a specific comparison that doesn't apply because of api differences or browser support?
> wouldn't it be more accurate for the selector testing to actually test against Sizzle[1]?
Part of the point is to show that you can achieve the same elegant chaining-like syntax as jQuery without wrapping selections, so maintaining the wrapped jQuery selectors are important for comparison.
> Other features aren't even present in jQuery, such as templating, and so I'm not sure why you'd even compare that.
The point of the templating comparison is to show that macros can provide a significant performance boost while maintaining a sane syntax.
I'm not sure there's an agreed upon design pattern. At Prismatic we've adopted a component-based system where a component is essentially the MVC for a single logically-grouped part of the application. Its defined as a record that binds its own events and renders markup from it's template. We try to push mutability and asynchronous functions (xhr, file io, etc.) as far up as possible to avoid unnecessary state manipulation and callbacks everywhere. The idea of reactive programming in ClojureScript is also very interesting as it would make event-handling much more manageable, simplifying event-dom glue code and removing unwieldy callback chains.
No, currently Dommy has a smaller feature set that we think covers a majority of use cases, while maintaining reasonable browser support. Our general philosophy is to add functionality as we need it or others request it. I don't think this makes the comparison invalid. We're comparing the general use cases (selectors, basic dom manipulation, etc.) that any DOM library should have. Can you point out a specific comparison that doesn't apply because of api differences or browser support?
> wouldn't it be more accurate for the selector testing to actually test against Sizzle[1]?
Part of the point is to show that you can achieve the same elegant chaining-like syntax as jQuery without wrapping selections, so maintaining the wrapped jQuery selectors are important for comparison.
> Other features aren't even present in jQuery, such as templating, and so I'm not sure why you'd even compare that.
The point of the templating comparison is to show that macros can provide a significant performance boost while maintaining a sane syntax.