Yesudeep Mangalapilly

Here is some sample code:

var calendarOptions = {
    timePeriod: 15,
    showTime: true,
    format: "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S",
    fxDuration: 1   // Don't really ...

Pretty smart I'd say. I liked this part especially.
String.prototype.trim.toString().include('return'))

There's always something to learn from your code.
I'm no...

Also I forgot to mention.

In all the tests I ran so far, trim17 performed fastest in all WebKit based browsers
with trim16 tailing it. And I still think trim17 ...

I actually think that is a good idea but has its own share of problems.
Firefox 3.5 introduces JavaScript 1.8.1 and with it arrives a
native implementation of S...

Have updated the article comments with benchmarks on quite a few browsers
and platforms. Please see that.

Also, if you wanted to pick something, I'd probably suggest trim13
which seems like it has consistent and quick performance across all the browsers.
Mine seems ...

Oh and that's for 2000 iterations. trim17 is the one I've written.

Here are the results:

Original length: 27662
trim10: 13ms (length: 27656)
trim11: 128ms (length: 27656)
trim12: 95ms (length: 27656)
trim13: 7ms (length: 27656)
...

I can understand that, except I'd side with including the most time-efficient function
that's available, simply because as a user of a library, I'd want to incl...

The regular expression-based String.prototype.trim()
implementation is known to be extremely slow.
jQuery uses the same regular expression for its
implementatio...