Prev: FAQ Topic - How do I generate a random integer from 1 to n? (2010-04-03)
Next: active (x)html newsgroup?
From: David Mark on 4 Apr 2010 11:45
Garrett Smith wrote:

[...]

>
> Millions of jquery users don't see the issue.
>

LOL. Who conducted that study?
From: Ivan S on 4 Apr 2010 12:41
On Apr 3, 12:06 pm, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote:
> Then I upgraded jQuery to its latest version 1.4.2. Immediately
> these pages failed.

Great observations, I have similar experience with jQuery - great
looking at first, poorly implemented after some time.

I had similar issues, I couldn't upgrade without some of my scripts
break. I've used jQuery 1.1.1, 1.2.6, 1.3.2 and 1.4.2. Almost all
upgrades failed. IE seems to be particulary vulnerable to upgrade
failures.
From: David Mark on 4 Apr 2010 13:10
Ivan S wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:06 pm, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
> georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote:
>> Then I upgraded jQuery to its latest version 1.4.2. Immediately
>> these pages failed.
>
> Great observations, I have similar experience with jQuery - great
> looking at first, poorly implemented after some time.
>
> I had similar issues, I couldn't upgrade without some of my scripts
> break. I've used jQuery 1.1.1, 1.2.6, 1.3.2 and 1.4.2. Almost all
> upgrades failed.

Yes, all it takes is to run 1.2-1.4 side by side in SlickSpeed (with a
wide enough assortment of simple queries that jQuery ostensibly
"supported" all these years). 1.3 is when they tacked on QSA in hopes
it would make people think jQuery was fast. They knew it would cause
all sorts of inconsistent results (which are particularly hard for
neophytes to debug), yet they went ahead with it anyway.

> IE seems to be particulary vulnerable to upgrade
> failures.

Of course. They have never figured out how to solve a very basic
problem that has existed since IE6 (and exists to this day in IE8
Compatibility View). Neither has Dojo, YUI, Prototype, MooTools, etc.
It sounds ridiculous, but it is demonstrably true (as I have
demonstrated numerous times). It's particularly irritating as I
personally gave Resig the answer back in October of 2007. Yes, 2007.
There's more on jQuery's history of futility in this primer, with code
snippets and links to related discussions:-

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

See a demonstration of the attribute problem here:-

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

....and realize that if CSS selector query engines can't read attributes,
they are like book reviewers that can't read books. :)

jQuery does not just fail _for_ amateurs. jQuery was written _by_
amateurs. And if you need support, you will likely be talking to...

For a recent "rebuttal" from an "anonymous" script kiddie, see the last
comment here:-

http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/javascripts-dark-alley/#comments

"what a bitter troll...."

Of course, I'd know that super-sized ellipsis anywhere. :)
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 4 Apr 2010 14:20
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:54:49 GMT, rf wrote:

>I have a couple of new clients who have legacy web sites created with Drupal
>and the unfortunate jQuery.
>
>In both cases I have been fortunate to be able to convince them that this is
>simply not the way to build web sites. I pointed out, and demonstrated, that
>jQuery is simply not cross browser. And I pointed out, and demonstrated,
>that Drupal is simply not a CMS for the average web site owner. It may be OK
>for web site producers, but not for my clients, who expect to be able to
>input their own content easily and be in total control of their site, and
>know what they are doing. They have both agreed to the re-engineering of
>their sites from, almost, the ground up.

This sounds as if Drupal was the wrong tool for them. We
shouldn't go to deep into discussing Drupal here, but for my web
sites mentioned previously Drupal is pretty much the ideal tool.

However, Drupal uses jQuery and, probably as usual, they use it
for purposes where they shouldn't have to use it. The makers of
Drupal are geniuses, but they are not without fault. They fall
into common traps when it comes to simple things like HTML. For
example, Drupal pages with comments typically have the same ID
for two HTML elements, one inside the other, for each comment,
which is a ghastly mistake.

I could tell some interesting JavaScript stories too. They had,
and still have, a comment link paging problem that could easily
be solved with a piece of JavaScript. But, as ever so often,
they don't appear to have a good JavaScript programmer, so they
just can't do it. I wrote a stopgap measure for the current,
bigger problem, which they will partly solve in their PHP code,
but a residual problem will remain that would require
JavaScript. I'm not a PHP programmer, and so cannot directly
involve myself in Drupal.

This seems to be a general phenomenon. Many web designers are
unable to utilize JavaScript, usually because of lack of
knowledge, lack of appreciation, underestimating the language,
paired with the usual self-overestimation that makes them push
JavaScript out of their sight, etc.

Hans-Georg
From: David Mark on 4 Apr 2010 15:31
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:09:54 -0400, David Mark wrote:
>
>> It is clearly self-destructing at this point. The "releases" are
>> getting closer together in frantic efforts to "keep up" with the
>> ever-increasing "major" browsers (and they are dismissing older browsers
>> with abandon as well). Pretty soon they'll be trying to rewrite it
>> daily and only "supporting" browsers that came out yesterday. Those
>> sorts of symptoms indicate a terminal condition.
>
> They might be helped though by the newer browsers edging closer
> to each other and closer to standards.

No, that edges them closer to the bit-bucket. Think about it. Why do
you suppose they tried to market QSA as "Sizzle"?

>
> On the other hand, new stuff is continuously invented and added
> to browsers, which may well push them apart again.

Another problem is that there will be so many browser variations in the
future that multi-browser strategies (particularly, but not limited to
UA sniffing) will be even more unworkable than they are now.

>
> It's an interesting process to watch.

I find it excruciating.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: FAQ Topic - How do I generate a random integer from 1 to n? (2010-04-03)
Next: active (x)html newsgroup?