> 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.

Isn't Dommy basically testing plain JS vs. jQuery at this point? That's kind of my point.

I'm also curious how well Dommy would perform in the 'real world'; seeing as everything is compiled down to plain JS, then the divide between library and implementation is removed. jQuery is a larger download hit on the first visit, but if it's already in cache (perhaps before they even reach your site) then the only code required to be downloaded is your app's specific implementation.

In the Dommy example for the templates, the jQuery code is 10 lines -- when formatted like generated.js (the equivalent Dommy code) and removing 2 unnecessary variable declarations. By contrast, generated.js is around 60 lines (giving you a few on account that there's some empty else-statements...). I know minification can do wonders, but the jQuery implementation is clearly going to be much fewer bytes. At what point does it eclipse the size of the jQuery lib itself? I guess that's up to usage.

If your library is the implementation, then it'd seem like you'd have a lot more data being sent over the wire, and likely more often as well on account of any changes to the Dommy which alters the output will have an effect on the cached files for each of them where that functionality was used. On the other hand, updating jQuery means only the 1 file has to be re-downloaded -- and not every userland implementation which uses the API.

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.

I'm extremely interested in this component based system -- I'm currently working on a project in the Seaside framework for Smalltalk and have fallen in love with the composability offered by this approach. However, I'm also a fan of Clojure, and it also seems like Clojure has a stronger community at this time. I'd be very happy if you release this at some point!