Prev: Using the `in` operator with host objects
Next: Function.prototype does not work
From: Scott Sauyet on 19 May 2010 08:36
David Mark wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> I think posting your critique is a little silly if it's not paired
>> with an actual attempt to help.
>
> Not really.  There are new people in this group every day.  Recently one
> asked specifically about jQuery and why it was constantly panned in
> here.  I do what I can to point out the follies out there.

So do you think pointing out that one site tried to use the jQuery
variable before it was defined in some way helps users decide whether
to use jQuery? Would the equivalent misuse of My Library found in the
wild be a strike against it?

--
Scott
From: David Mark on 19 May 2010 08:52
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> I think posting your critique is a little silly if it's not paired
>>> with an actual attempt to help.
>> Not really. There are new people in this group every day. Recently one
>> asked specifically about jQuery and why it was constantly panned in
>> here. I do what I can to point out the follies out there.
>
> So do you think pointing out that one site tried to use the jQuery
> variable before it was defined in some way helps users decide whether
> to use jQuery? Would the equivalent misuse of My Library found in the
> wild be a strike against it?
>

No. It just goes to show what the typical jQuery code monkey is capable
of. Imagine putting something like that into production. Are they kidding?
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Using the `in` operator with host objects
Next: Function.prototype does not work