@eerne: Yes. I am aware of that, but that’s the not the point of the post. Valerio is comparing the CSS selector engines of Sizzle and Mootools only in his test - not the framework. Here’s what he said:
In an effort to test the true efficiency of our CSS selectors engines, I have made a modification to SlickSpeed, so that it runs every test only once, and a couple of modifications to the MooTools code. This special testing version of MooTools no longer “extends” the resulting nodes (I did that by simply adding a method that passes an optional parameter to the default function getElements, as I cannot pass parameters using SlickSpeed), and it uses querySelectorAll where available, just like Sizzle does. This way we can have a true comparison between engines, instead of frameworks and engines.
The point wasn’t the frameworks overall speed. The point of the blog post was about why Mootools wouldn’t integrate Sizzle as their CSS Selector engine. And just to prove why it wouldn’t be a huge speed benefit he created the test. Obviously, the gains in speed were minimal, but combined with the headache of updates, fixes, and patches Sizzle would be an unwise and unjust addition to Mootools. I just thought it was a well-written post and he explained it in a very in-depth manner.
). And in October they released version 1.2.1. It might not be the buzzing community that ModX is, but mootools is certainly not dead.
