jQuery 1.4.2 buggy [JavaScript]

Prev: question of logic?
Next: SUBMIT and Request.QueryString("

From: Thomas Allen on 19 Mar 2010 09:53

On Mar 19, 9:14 am, Jonathan Fine <J.F...(a)open.ac.uk> wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
> > David Mark has a superior "product" called My Library
> > <url:http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib.html>
>
> I'm delighted to see that it is now available open source.

That doesn't seem to be the case. Note that Math.ceil occurs twice in
the source, in mylib-qsa-min.js and mylib-min.js. Of course one would
be foolish to believe, as seen in trunk, that mylib-qsa-min.js is in
fact derived from mylib-qsa.js, the former weighing 159kb and the
latter 3.5kb.

Thomas

From: Jonathan Fine on 19 Mar 2010 10:03

From: David Mark on 19 Mar 2010 11:19

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> I just replaced an older version of jQuery with 1.4.2, which
> promptly broke the page where it was used (
> http://winhlp.com/wxnet.htm ).

Well I never. :)

>
> In this case it was apparently not a browser incompatibility,
> but an outright defect---the .contents() method, which worked
> well in the earlier version, now produces nonsense.

That's a typical result for nonsense logic, especially in a discipline
as unforgiving as cross-browser scripting.

>
> Had to rewrite the affected part of the code in pure JavaScript,
> and the whole story showed both the weakness and the strength of
> jQuery. The pure JavaScript code is much longer and much harder
> to understand than the jQuery one-liner it replaced.

Longer in what way? Remember with jQuery you are starting out with 70K
of shaky, every-shifting nonsense code.

>
> I wish we could have a version of jQuery that worked well. There
> is obviously a market for that.

Well, it's not jQuery, but:-

http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib.html

is a far sight better.

>
> This made me think about jQuery's basic method of always
> wrapping a DOM element array.

Yes, what a ham-fisted abstraction. Everything is multiple elements?!
Well, except when it wraps a document or a window or whatever. It's
nonsense from any perspective.

> I think that's clever, because you
> can always get the element itself by merely adding an index
> expression.

I don't like that as then you can change it and throw the whole thing
out of whack.

var el = E('myid').element();

> On the other hand it may be worth a thought to have
> an extra wrapper for a single DOM element.

See above. :) There's also D for document, Q for query, W for window,
F for form, C for control and I for image, all with interfaces
appropriate for the type of object being wrapper. Now, I know some
people don't like using globals, but how does it make sense for all of
the "majors" to use the dollar sign (and for different purposes?) And I
don't see how $F if any better than F. Yahoo owns Y. I claim the rest
of the uppercase letters. ;)

>
> I think it would be even nicer if the jQuery object shadowed all
> DOM properties and methods as well, perhaps just for the
> single-element instance.

Then they would be finally catching up to My Library which has done just
that since the CWR project in late 2007. See the TaskSpeed tests (speed
and conciseness) and tell you can't live without jQuery's "convenience".
Also, the add-ons are written by me, not jQuerites. :)

>
> It seems pretty obvious why particularly beginners like jQuery.

No, it's just marketing. Beginners don't consider the alternatives as
they often can't understand them. I think they can understand My
Library though. In fact, I'm sure they can.

> Its way to express DOM manipulations is, no doubt, elegant and
> easy to understand.

There's nothing the slightest bit elegant about it, inside or out
(though it may seem like that for beginners who don't know any better).

> Its inefficiency doesn't concern the
> beginner at first.

Inefficiency? What's that? :)

>
> I think it is time to write a new version of jQuery, a competing
> product whose functional expressions are at least as elegant as
> jQuery's, but which is leaner and works better.

Where have you been?

> Good
> documentation would also help.

It's getting better.

> jQuery's is too superficial and
> imprecise.

Exactly. Quantity over quality.

>
> But at the rate jQuery is adopted and spreading that is unlikely
> to happen.
>

Au contraire, fait accompli.

From: David Mark on 19 Mar 2010 11:25

Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>> On 19/03/2010 9:59 AM, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is time to write a new version of jQuery, a competing
>>> product whose functional expressions are at least as elegant as
>>> jQuery's, but which is leaner and works better. Good
>>> documentation would also help. jQuery's is too superficial and
>>> imprecise.
>>
>> David Mark has a superior "product" called My Library
>> <url: http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib.html >
>
> I'm delighted to see that it is now available open source. (Maybe not
> news to this group, but news to me.)
>

I'm delighted you are delighted. :) The 1.0 release is imminent. Come
on over and join the group:-

http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/

We talk about My Library here occasionally, but that's where to get the
real inside dope.

From: David Mark on 19 Mar 2010 11:28

Thomas Allen wrote:
> On Mar 19, 9:14 am, Jonathan Fine <J.F...(a)open.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>>> David Mark has a superior "product" called My Library
>>> <url:http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib.html>
>> I'm delighted to see that it is now available open source.
>
> That doesn't seem to be the case.

I assure you it is.

> Note that Math.ceil occurs twice in
> the source, in mylib-qsa-min.js and mylib-min.js.

So? Those are the same, except one has the QSA add-on tacked on.

> Of course one would
> be foolish to believe, as seen in trunk, that mylib-qsa-min.js is in
> fact derived from mylib-qsa.js, the former weighing 159kb and the
> latter 3.5kb.
>

An unfortunate naming decision done in haste, which contradicts my
previous pattern. Note that there is no minified version of the QSA
add-on on the downloads page because of this. I will rectify that when
I get around to it.

Still, I don't see what this has to do with... Oh wait, yes I do. Use
the builder... :)

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: question of logic?
Next: SUBMIT and Request.QueryString("