Prev: Precise printing from Javascript?
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)
From: David Mark on 23 Jul 2010 20:17
On Jul 23, 8:03 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:

;...]

>
> > IF that were the case, you can bet they'd be using qooxdoo (or Dojo or
> > ExtJS or whatever).  They're hooked on feeling, high on
> > believing...  ;)
>
> I am sorry, you have had your three flames for the today. See you tomorrow*.
>

The group's closed tomorrow. Please stay home.
From: Richard Cornford on 24 Jul 2010 22:10
Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not
> asking questions that pertain to libraries.

That would be a strange thing for you to be imagining.

> It is true that, in a C++ newsgroup, you will have to
> redirect an occasional question that is strictly and MFC
> question, but in general, comparing libraries is educational and gives
> people library code they can
> reference.

It strikes me as disjointed to be relating questions being redirected to
a more appropriate forum and the educational value of comparing
libraries.

> comp.lang.shell discussions quickly evolve into comparisons
> of different solutions for different tools. That was a way
> to expand knowledge.

Knowledge of what, the capabilities of those different tools?

> If this is a way to deal with needy newbies,

Is what "a way to deal with needy newbies"? So far you have spoken of
limitations of your imagination.

> there are better ways to do that.

Probably. Lots of things can be done better, including attempting to
make a point, where stating that point (in as many words) is much better
than not.

Richard.

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 26 Jul 2010 21:24
Alan Gutierrez wrote:

> [...] If [jQuery] is that bad, maybe it is worth a fork.

Strange thinking. If software is too bad, it is worth a *rewrite*, at most.


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk>
From: JR on 26 Jul 2010 21:43
On Jul 26, 10:24 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
wrote:
> Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
> who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
> the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
>   -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300d...(a)news.demon.co.uk>

'Kangax' is a Prototype.js core developer and he does know Javascript
a lot!
http://perfectionkills.com/

Therefore, Thomas, that quote after your signature has a problem with
one of its assertions and thus it represents a fallacy.
--
JR
From: David Mark on 26 Jul 2010 22:36
On Jul 26, 9:43 pm, JR <groups_j...(a)yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 10:24 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
> > who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
> > the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
> >   -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300d...(a)news.demon.co.uk>
>
> 'Kangax' is a Prototype.js core developer and he does know Javascript
> a lot!http://perfectionkills.com/
>
> Therefore, Thomas, that quote after your signature has a problem with
> one of its assertions and thus it represents a fallacy.

Not really as I believe the quote predates Kangax' involvement in that
dubious project. It's true that, as I attempted to do for Dojo,
Kangax tried to help Prototype.

AIUI, the outcomes were eerily similar. In a nutshell, both projects
were designed by people who didn't/don't know Javascript (e.g. Scott
Stephenson and Alex Russell). Those facts are self-evident by the
histories of the respective projects (and their staggeringly poor code
as it exists to this day). Furthermore, when was the last time (if
ever) you saw any of them in here defending their efforts? They
either know they are defenseless or actually believe that because each
project snared a certain amount of users (Prototype more than Dojo),
that they must have done a good job.

The developers of each project couldn't grasp the idea that much of
their work needed to be torn up and rewritten and thus blocked
attempts to do so. Sad stories, both (particularly for the users of
these scripts).
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Precise printing from Javascript?
Next: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-07-20)