JSLint Reports on last 2 Production Versions of jQuery
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Entry Proposal: What is (function(){ /*...*/ })() ?
Next: FAQ Topic - What is Ajax? (2010-03-01)
From: Stefan Weiss on 1 Mar 2010 19:56 On 02/03/10 01:32, lorlarz wrote: > ** I re-ran jQuery in JSLint and nothing WHATSOEVER CHANGED IN THE > REPORT *** > (i.e exactly the SAME long list of 'errors' was generated by JSLint.) I didn't try it myself, but I think that's highly unlikely. I only clicked on one of the changeset links you posted, and in that set alone, at least 20-30 JSLint warnings should have been fixed. Did you really check out the current trunk version of JQuery? HEAD, or whatever it's called in Git-land (sorry, svn user here). > Big question is: which of these 'errors' are real errors and have > any importance. The last report of the errors reported by JSLint > are still all there (and I doubt the 3 things I had to comment > out to get JSLint to scan all the way through have anything to > do with them). What's a real error? None of them are syntax errors. None of them affect the library's behavior. A few, like the while condition with several side effects, are quite ugly, and I wouldn't like them in my code, but they're valid enough. So what's a real error for you? > STILL, can someone simply fix the three things I had to comment out > so I can run JSLint with the complete jQuery fully intact? Please, > some regular expression guru. Help. This is a pressing need. I suppose I could look into it, but I don't see what good it would do. You'd only be changing a local copy, and if you can't get convince the developers to apply your changes, it's a waste of time. And why is it suddenly so urgent? -- stefan
From: Andrew Poulos on 1 Mar 2010 21:41 On 2/03/2010 12:25 PM, David Mark wrote: > lorlarz wrote: >> On Mar 1, 6:27 pm, David Mark<dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> lorlarz wrote: >> [snip] >>>> This might make a lot of JS people here mad, but I _want_ to use >>>> jQuery. >>> Why should anyone care if you _want_ to shoot yourself in the foot. As >>> noted by several people, cleaning up the syntax won't cure its real ills >>> (the logic) any more than cleaning up Dojo's syntax cured its problems. >>> It's just a first step to clear things up enough so that the real work >>> can begin (and history has shown that the jQuery developers are not up >>> to doing any real work). For me, the argument for jquery sounds a lot like the argument for the food provided by Mcdonalds, KFC, Hungry Jacks... In that the food is fast, cheap, and does the job (if the job is to fill your stomach rather than to provide nutrition). Andrew Poulos
From: David Mark on 1 Mar 2010 22:08 Andrew Poulos wrote: > On 2/03/2010 12:25 PM, David Mark wrote: >> lorlarz wrote: >>> On Mar 1, 6:27 pm, David Mark<dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> lorlarz wrote: >>> [snip] >>>>> This might make a lot of JS people here mad, but I _want_ to use >>>>> jQuery. >>>> Why should anyone care if you _want_ to shoot yourself in the foot. As >>>> noted by several people, cleaning up the syntax won't cure its real >>>> ills >>>> (the logic) any more than cleaning up Dojo's syntax cured its problems. >>>> It's just a first step to clear things up enough so that the real >>>> work >>>> can begin (and history has shown that the jQuery developers are not up >>>> to doing any real work). > > For me, the argument for jquery sounds a lot like the argument for the > food provided by Mcdonalds, KFC, Hungry Jacks... In that the food is > fast, cheap, and does the job (if the job is to fill your stomach rather > than to provide nutrition). > Yes, it is mostly empty calories and ultimately _very bad_ for you. But many of the people who use these things just want to force-feed the clients, fill their wallets and blow town, so they aren't around to see the stuff come up. The clients feel "full" for a little while anyway (i.e. their sites look like they work in the latest major browsers and their "experts" advise them not worry about anything else). And, of course, if they do happen to find out that their clients are sick, their "solution" is to prescribe more junk (i.e. try the latest nightly). I mean, if a doctor says you have dangerously high cholesterol levels, they are unlikely to instruct you to try the latest Big Mac (more likely they will tell you to stay off the junk entirely).
From: lorlarz on 1 Mar 2010 22:34 On Mar 1, 6:56 pm, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/03/10 01:32, lorlarz wrote: > > > ** I re-ran jQuery in JSLint and nothing WHATSOEVER CHANGED IN THE > > REPORT *** > > (i.e exactly the SAME long list of 'errors' was generated by JSLint.) > > I didn't try it myself, but I think that's highly unlikely. I only > clicked on one of the changeset links you posted, and in that set alone, > at least 20-30 JSLint warnings should have been fixed. Did you really > check out the current trunk version of JQuery? HEAD, or whatever it's > called in Git-land (sorry, svn user here). [snip] > -- > stefan I am referring to using the same version I used yesterday from http://jquery.com , with one change in one 'fix' . I did not try any updates since Resig made any changes in response to the JSLint results. I was talking about a re-run of JSLint after I made a safer fix to one of the problems in _yesterday's_ code, that is all. The new fix to the one line cannot harm the jQuery code (while the initial 'fix' I used yesterday for that one line could -- conceivably). That is what I am talking about. Now, all the fixes I did to get jQuery through to the end (i.e. to a a full scan from JSLint) can in no way do any harm to anything in jQuery (with only the 3 commented bits or regular expression code the only possible exceptions, those being: // replace(/=([^="'>\s]+\/)>/g, '="$1">') // jsre = /=\?(&|$)/, /* while ( (chunker.exec(""), m = chunker.exec(soFar)) !== null ) { soFar = m[3]; parts.push( m[1] ); if ( m[2] ) { extra = m[3]; break; } } */ AGAIN, I have not re-run the JSLint with any of Resigs changes (all which occurred since yesterday). That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about no difference in JSLint results after I substituted a complete equivalent bit of code (that is: equivalent to the original) for one last fix, where I had not necessarily done that before. The result: > ** I re-ran jQuery in JSLint and nothing WHATSOEVER CHANGED IN THE > REPORT *** > (i.e exactly the SAME long list of 'errors' was generated by JSLint.)
From: lorlarz on 1 Mar 2010 22:43
On Mar 1, 7:25 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > lorlarz wrote: > > On Mar 1, 6:27 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> lorlarz wrote: > > [snip] > >>> This might make a lot of JS people here mad, but I _want_ to use > >>> jQuery. > >> Why should anyone care if you _want_ to shoot yourself in the foot. As > >> noted by several people, cleaning up the syntax won't cure its real ills > >> (the logic) any more than cleaning up Dojo's syntax cured its problems.. > >> It's just a first step to clear things up enough so that the real work > >> can begin (and history has shown that the jQuery developers are not up > >> to doing any real work). > > >>> I just want to have all assurance or reasonable > >>> quality control. > >> Then for Christ's sake, listen to people who know better and don't use > >> that piece of junk. Why do you _want_ to use it? Because you see lots > >> of other people using it? If they all jumped off a bridge, would you > >> follow suit? > > >>> At the very least, jQuery is very close to > >>> OK. > >> No, it isn't. You are getting hung up on the JSLint results, which is > >> odd as they don't indicate that all is well either. > > >>> I just really want to know if there are any _real_ errors > >>> that make things work wrong. > > [snip] > > > I am a long time JavaScripter and tend to use jQuery only very > > sparingly for select purposes, where it makes things not just > > a little easier but a LOT easier. (I have been criticized for > > using it too little; and, I do still write most programs without > > it.) > > > If we could just focus on the JSLint results which I have some > > appreciation for. Mainly: Why must I comment out the 2 single > > lines and the block of 5 lines in order for JSLint to make > > it further (and on through to the end of jQuery)? What is wrong > > with _those_ 3 areas of code -- _that_ worries me. > > That seems most serious. At least > > a good bit of anything else serious seems to be being addressed > > by Resig. > > > David, I looked at the couple of web pages you cited and would > > thusly not use jQuery for purposes where those sorts of things > > come up (though I will admit that I did not look at the web > > pages long enough to really much figure out what they were > > about, but it seemed limited and specialized). > > 1. Those issues are the tip of a huge iceberg. > > 2. If you didn't know about those handful of problems, then you > certainly didn't know to avoid them, nor can you avoid the problems that > you can't see. Worse still, the problems may not appear in the > browsers that you have time to test, which is necessarily a tiny subset > of those in use today on the Web. > > 3. There's nothing limited and specialized about querying by attribute > (or reading/writing/removing attributes). That sort of stuff shows up > in virtually every jQuery example. Where's the list of "bad > attributes?" There isn't one as it would require a dissertation-sized > document to explain the particulars. > > The one thing they assert to do better than anyone else is queries and > it is quite clear that they don't do those well at all. They dumped QSA > on top of an already inconsistent mess, so now they have two layers of > inconsistency that vary between browsers, browser versions, browser > modes, and (worst of all) jQuery versions. So stop using CSS queries > (anyone's rendition) to find elements. It's programming for failure, no > matter what a million clueless, gushing bloggers and shills assert. > > Then there is IE quirks mode, which they professed to "support" for [snip] That all sounds really bad. I doubt that studying the 2 web pages would make this clear to me, but perhaps I should take a closer look. If the situation is so bad, then perhaps you should publish a list of specific, obviously important and/or common specific failures (in the specific browsers). Only such an expose' would make it clear to me _and_ certainly such an expose' would be necessary to cause adherents to stop and take a close look -- and that is what matters. |