jQuery vs. My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Peter Michaux on 31 Jan 2010 01:27 On Jan 22, 9:34 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And yes, there's a growing community of people who are tired of using > lousy browser scripts and putting up with authors who can't fix > anything. Such a community is really "growing"? I just see more and more jQuery everywhere I look. > They are helping to test in ancient browsers because it helps > to illuminate problems that could show up in other lesser browsers (e.g. > mobile devices). It's not so that people can use NN4.7 (though they > certainly can if they want). I wish more people understood this point. I've found bugs thanks to testing in "weird" browsers. > And, of course, the whole [My Library] is modular to a fault What is the fault? Peter
From: Peter Michaux on 31 Jan 2010 01:33 On Jan 22, 11:25 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Helbrax wrote: > > Also, why use the name prototype? > > Because they are stupid. ;) > > > Why not just name it "if" or "function"(or "!function")? :P > > How about "constructor?" "My Library" is overloaded and ambiguous also. "I was using my library today." vs "I was using My Library today." is a bit too subtle. Also Googling "My Library" will likely be a bit of trouble. Peter
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 01:45 On Jan 31, 1:33 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 11:25 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Helbrax wrote: > > > Also, why use the name prototype? > > > Because they are stupid. ;) > > > > Why not just name it "if" or "function"(or "!function")? :P > > > How about "constructor?" > > "My Library" is overloaded and ambiguous also. It's the name of the Web app that generates custom libraries. I think it is appropriate for that. After you build it, it is _your_ library. "I was using my library > today." vs "I was using My Library today." is a bit too subtle. Also > Googling "My Library" will likely be a bit of trouble. > "My Library javascript" and even "browser scripting library" result in the top pick in every search engine I've tested, but the point is taken.
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 01:51 On Jan 31, 1:27 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 22, 9:34 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > And yes, there's a growing community of people who are tired of using > > lousy browser scripts and putting up with authors who can't fix > > anything. > > Such a community is really "growing"? I just see more and more jQuery > everywhere I look. > > > They are helping to test in ancient browsers because it helps > > to illuminate problems that could show up in other lesser browsers (e.g.. > > mobile devices). It's not so that people can use NN4.7 (though they > > certainly can if they want). > > I wish more people understood this point. I've found bugs thanks to > testing in "weird" browsers. They are great for that. :) It's not that I care that Opera 6 has no documentElement property. I want the library to degrade gracefully in any environment. > > > And, of course, the whole [My Library] is modular to a fault > > What is the fault? > Ah, figure of speech. Perhaps not appropriate here. I used that a ways back to describe Dojo's automatic downloading and concatenation of dozens of files on every refresh (through sync XHR no less), with no option to leverage the files individually (so why are they separate?) I don't think I ever got a suitable answer on that one (among many other questions). There are faults to the partial builds though. The use of typeof to detect functions that may not be part of the build is clearly error- prone (and I have been slowly weeding those out and replacing them with API.* tests). The server side script is fairly primitive as well as it could easily take care of these issues on its end.
From: David Mark on 9 Feb 2010 02:08
On Jan 27, 7:31 pm, "D.Campagna" <retsamt...(a)danielecampagna.co.cc> wrote: > David Mark ha scritto: > > >> Scott, > >> thanks for the time you invested in this review. > > > Review? > > Test? Comment? Whatever. English is not my first language. Yes, that was uncalled for. My apologies as I knew what you meant. > > >> We all know the way DM tries to promote himself and his work and how he > >> is used to argue with the unfortunates who try to exchange opinions with > >> him. > > > What does that mean? Seriously. > > Minimize or ignore criticism aimed at you; Ludicrous. Do you have examples or are you just making things up? > insult people, distort facts and words. Examples? > You caused the runaway of many decent persons from this > newsgroup, too. Oh dear. If grown adults cannot control their own PC's and eyes and choose to flee a newsgroup rather than skip articles by authors they don't like, I can hardly be named the culprit. If this were a moderated group, these same "adults" would be crying to the moderator to install a global filter for them. For God's sake, filter your own mail. > And you are banned from some other newsgroups. > And you > in the past have faked your name to support yourself and your library. > And so on. Seriously. > > > > >> The entire thing is so pathetic and ridicolous that should never have > >> been even discussed in a serious technical forum. > > > What is pathetic and ridiculous? The two-year-old speed test page > > with the two-year-old libraries? It's now been updated with newer > > From now on, maybe it's not still ridicolous. But it was! No, it wasn't. > > > > >> Strange enough, nobody > >> here ever noticed such biased tests were in place, even if Mr. Mark > >> often bragged about the speed of his library et. al. > > > Are you insane? That selector test page has sat in the same spot, > > unchanged for two years and I never even mentioned it. When I talk > > about speed, I am talking about things other than queries. > > And if you are addressing people to your homepage and there they will > find that bullshit, this is what you have done, no more and no less. It was never bullshit. It was a test of pre-QSA libraries, rather than apples vs. oranges. The whole jump to QSA is a ridiculous blunder anyway. Like browser sniffing, it allows the authors to delude themselves at the expense of their users. > > >> 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? The only "supporters" I really care about are those who send me money, which have been steadily growing in number since I started promoting the library as something other than a curiosity. :) Having trouble with a rusting Prototype or jQuery site? Do drop me a line. ;) > > > > >> I come back to my habit to lurk this NG; I suppose many other do the > >> same. I oly wanted to make it clear, I appreciate this thread... > > > Too bad you got nothing out of it. :( > > To be fair: I began to understand something about javascript when I > first stumped into this newsgroup. > And you too teached me something, among your rants. The same way one > learns how to properly use a hammer after having beaten his finger, I > would add. :-) > > Oh and I tried your library months ago, and apparently I found > immediately a small insignificant bug in the graphical effects test > page. Insignificant, but... Well, I am all ears, but it has likely already been addressed as testing all of the old browsers turned up some holes in the feature testing. There was a silly oversight in the enhanced changeImage function as well, which has been fixed in the posted downloads, but I haven't re-built the dynamic (builder) version yet. And again, my pitch has never been that it is 9000+ error-free, perfectly executed and thoroughly tested lines of JS. Not even close at this point. My point is that it is light years ahead of the others. The design is far more ambitious as well (to allow calling apps to gracefully degrade, rather than run head-first into brick walls). And the others have that nagging browser sniffing that has to be updated constantly to keep up with just a handful of major browsers (in their default configurations). It's night and day in that respect. |