jQuery vs. My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Andrew Poulos on 28 Jan 2010 02:35 On 28/01/2010 4:57 PM, Faisal Vali wrote: > On Jan 27, 7:56 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 28/01/2010 11:31 AM, D.Campagna wrote: >> >>> David Mark ha scritto: >>>>> Sometimes I have the feeling that a lot of people here are very tolerant >>>>> to Mr. Mark. >> >>>> What does that mean? >> >>> It seems you have some supporters, after all. Not proud of it? >> >> I think you misunderstand. Being able to see the worth in what someone >> is saying does not mean that a judgement has been made on the worth of >> the person themselves. >> >> Though postings (such as yours) whose purpose appear to cause injury, do >> tend to say something about the poster. >> > > As does the above statement, and therefore I guess this one too. > Perhaps we all need to reign our sanctimony in a little ;) I ask that posters not attack personalities because that reflects badly on the posters themselves but you find that so offensive that you need to call me a hypocrite? Andrew Poulos
From: D.Campagna on 28 Jan 2010 06:19 Andrew Poulos ha scritto: > I think you misunderstand. Being able to see the worth in what someone > is saying does not mean that a judgement has been made on the worth of > the person themselves. I don't think someone here is denying the huge work and the huge knowledge necessary to put toghether such a library, nor the competence of DM. And I don't judge the person, because it is completely possible that DM is the kindest person in the world, and has created a fictional personality here just to "shake the water". Do you know him personally? > > Though postings (such as yours) whose purpose appear to cause injury, do > tend to say something about the poster. > Not really a tough post, nor even comparable with the angry posts of DM. Maybe he's causing some reaction. You too seem to react. It's normal. I can and i do judge actions, not persons, via internet. Fair enough? > Andrew Poulos Dan
From: Faisal Vali on 28 Jan 2010 09:32 On Jan 28, 1:35 am, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 28/01/2010 4:57 PM, Faisal Vali wrote: > > > > > On Jan 27, 7:56 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 28/01/2010 11:31 AM, D.Campagna wrote: > > >>> David Mark ha scritto: > >>>>> Sometimes I have the feeling that a lot of people here are very tolerant > >>>>> to Mr. Mark. > > >>>> What does that mean? > > >>> It seems you have some supporters, after all. Not proud of it? > > >> I think you misunderstand. Being able to see the worth in what someone > >> is saying does not mean that a judgement has been made on the worth of > >> the person themselves. > > >> Though postings (such as yours) whose purpose appear to cause injury, do > >> tend to say something about the poster. > > > As does the above statement, and therefore I guess this one too. > > Perhaps we all need to reign our sanctimony in a little ;) > > I ask that posters not attack personalities because that reflects badly > on the posters themselves but you find that so offensive that you need > to call me a hypocrite? > No. I applaud your sentiment that we should avoid ad hominem "arguments". I was simply commenting on the veiled personal attack within the remark that "postings (such as yours) ... do tend to say something about the poster". Now, if you meant that as a positive remark about the poster, I apologize.
From: wmc on 29 Jan 2010 08:43 Faisal Vali wrote: > While few would dispute that David Mark's discourse should be more > civil, Ajaxian blacklisting his work because of the nature of his > discourse rather than the quality of his work raises far more > disturbing issues about Ajaxian's integrity (to us consumers) than it > could possibly raise about David Mark's attitude. The brunt of the > criticism should be directed towards Ajaxian here. I for one was > looking forward to that article. You are 100% correct. There is nothing more relevant that the Ajaxian could discuss. What is more relevant than a fundamental criticism of all the major JS libraries and the counter-claim of a superior design? The fact that DM has (to put it mildly) an abrasive on-line persona, which even extends to criticism of *them*, should be taken by them as a challenge. If his claims are so baseless and irrelevant, why don't they sharpen their knives and assemble a 'dream team' to rebut his claims? They would probably say they don't want to give him any more publicity, but if they can't demolish what he's saying technically, then he, and the issues he raises, deserve to be widely aired. As somebody with no dog in this fight, I, too, would love to read their article on this and the followups... I plan to contact them and tell them so. --williamc
From: Garrett Smith on 29 Jan 2010 17:47
wmc wrote: > Faisal Vali wrote: >> While few would dispute that David Mark's discourse should be more >> civil, Ajaxian blacklisting his work because of the nature of his >> discourse rather than the quality of his work raises far more >> disturbing issues about Ajaxian's integrity (to us consumers) than it >> could possibly raise about David Mark's attitude. The brunt of the >> criticism should be directed towards Ajaxian here. I for one was >> looking forward to that article. > > > You are 100% correct. There is nothing more relevant that the Ajaxian > could discuss. > > What is more relevant than a fundamental criticism of all the major JS > libraries and the counter-claim of a superior design? > So you want to know what would be more relevant than criticism, plus a counter claim of superiority? How about a drama-free discussion of what defines good and bad design? There are many factors to consider in javascript library design. These factors include, but are not limited to: The program, time constraints, budget. Library design decisions can also be influenced by hype. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |