Scope of result of new
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: My apologize for multiple posting last night
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-05-19)
From: Sean Kinsey on 19 May 2010 07:46 On May 19, 1:57 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: .... > You did declare `w', didn't you? And you really should eschew ExtJS, it's > proven junk. If so then its junk that works, and that saves you a helluvalot of time. The library might have some issues (like most complex libaries) but I can easily work around those within the time I save doing everything else.
From: David Mark on 19 May 2010 08:56 Sean Kinsey wrote: > On May 19, 1:57 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: > ... >> You did declare `w', didn't you? And you really should eschew ExtJS, it's >> proven junk. > > If so then its junk that works, and that saves you a helluvalot of > time. Junk that relies on browser sniffing cannot possibly save you time in the long run. Think about it. If it is written based on today's observations, then what happens tomorrow? It's programming for failure. > The library might have some issues (like most complex libaries) but I > can easily work around those within the time I save doing everything > else. Does it ever have issues. :) And your workarounds may well conflict with whatever Ext releases next month. They are known to break compatibility often enough on their own and you are compounding that problem with monkey patching. You haven't really thought this through at all, have you? Don't be hypnotized by pretty widgets.
From: Sean Kinsey on 19 May 2010 09:39 On May 19, 2:56 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: ... > Does it ever have issues. :) And your workarounds may well conflict > with whatever Ext releases next month. They are known to break > compatibility often enough on their own and you are compounding that > problem with monkey patching. > > You haven't really thought this through at all, have you? Don't be > hypnotized by pretty widgets. Ah, thats actually one of the first things I've laughed at all day :) No, but seriously - even if I decided to replace all the checks for .isIE (there are 86 of them in in ext-all-debug.js) then I would probably still use less time on this than on creating all the widgets manually, or say, by using My Library. And there's no need to remind me that there is also .isOpera etc.. Instead of spewing out the same ill-crafted arguments each time someone mentions x, y or z, why don't you do like most other and write a Good Blog Post (tm) about it? Can't you just see it? It would spread like wild fire, you could be the one who saves the internet!
From: David Mark on 19 May 2010 10:12
Sean Kinsey wrote: > On May 19, 2:56 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > .. > >> Does it ever have issues. :) And your workarounds may well conflict >> with whatever Ext releases next month. They are known to break >> compatibility often enough on their own and you are compounding that >> problem with monkey patching. >> >> You haven't really thought this through at all, have you? Don't be >> hypnotized by pretty widgets. > > Ah, thats actually one of the first things I've laughed at all day :) Laughter is the best medicine. :) > > No, but seriously - even if I decided to replace all the checks > for .isIE (there are 86 of them in in ext-all-debug.js) LOL. 86 huh? What would you replace them with? And see my recent post about IE9. ;) > then I would > probably still use less time on this than on creating all the widgets > manually, or say, by using My Library. My Library has a nice array of widgets (and more are on the way). See the Examples page. There's no such thing as a widget that should take more than a day or two to write for My Library. And they last virtually forever (as evidenced by their compatibility with the last ten year's worth of browsers). > And there's no need to remind me that there is also .isOpera etc.. Yes, I'm sure it's quite a snarl. So anything you write today is instantly dated. > > Instead of spewing out the same ill-crafted arguments each time > someone mentions x, y or z, why don't you do like most other and write > a Good Blog Post (tm) about it? What part of my arguments did you find ill-crafted? > Can't you just see it? It would spread > like wild fire, you could be the one who saves the internet! I've already done more than you can imagine in that area. I don't typically write the blog posts though (I leave that to others). http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html |