jQuery vs. My Library
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Matt Kruse on 22 Jan 2010 14:18 On Jan 22, 11:34 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The various > globals (e.g. E, Q, D, W) are actually constructors, which allows for > leveraging all of the wonderful OO features included in all ES > implementations (see F and I for examples). With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc Can I do E("#mydiv .classname").hide(); // multiple elements with your lib? What if there are no elements found? > All the more laughable given Resig's infamous "you don't understand > test-driven development" retort to a review from two years back. I would like to see your lib run against jQuery's test suite. Not all would be expected to pass, of course, since they may look for some different results. If you could write some wrapper so that your lib could "plug into" the tests, that would be cool and make people more comfortable with moving over. > But seriously, we've tested successfully in:- > IE 5-8 > FF 1-3.5 > Safari 2-4 > Opera 5-10 > Netscape 3-9 > All modes and virtually all platforms with few issues to report (and > most of those fixed immediately). It would be interesting to see how you support functionality that simply isn't possible in older browsers. Do you just not do it? If so, then are they really "supported"? > And take a guess which is faster. Rather, don't guess but try the the > Speed Test. Have you? Will you post the results? Matt Kruse
From: S.T. on 22 Jan 2010 14:36 On 1/22/2010 9:34 AM, David Mark wrote: > > Questions? 1. Is it being used *anywhere* right now where code can actually be seen? Aside from a single lawyer's website with a somewhat uninspiring look and compressed code, never seen it in the wild to view what the code usage might look like. Docs look like a very lengthy list of methods with curious naming pattern -- tough to visualize. 2. Target audience would appear to be experienced JS developers who are concerned about legacy browsers. Fair representation? Yes, I realize it's a thousand-fold better than anything currently out there as you're a thousand-fold better than Resig, the YUI team, etc.... but that aside, am I on base with the actual target audience?
From: David Mark on 22 Jan 2010 14:38 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jan 22, 11:34 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The various >> globals (e.g. E, Q, D, W) are actually constructors, which allows for >> leveraging all of the wonderful OO features included in all ES >> implementations (see F and I for examples). > > With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well > as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc Yeah, I've never been married to those names. Longer names (or aliases) would be a good idea. > > Can I do > E("#mydiv .classname").hide(); // multiple elements > with your lib? Q("#mydiv .classname").show(false); > What if there are no elements found? It will dutifully hide no elements. > >> All the more laughable given Resig's infamous "you don't understand >> test-driven development" retort to a review from two years back. > > I would like to see your lib run against jQuery's test suite. Not all > would be expected to pass, of course, since they may look for some > different results. I'm adding so many unit tests at the moment that I'll have everything covered. I'll look at it when I'm done to see if I forgot anything. Any suite that jQuery passes can hardly be comprehensive. Also, realize that I did not bother to do every CSS selector. I may well fill in the blanks in the future. See the Speed Test page to get an idea of what is supported (obviously, if it is on there, it is supported). > > If you could write some wrapper so that your lib could "plug into" the > tests, that would be cool and make people more comfortable with moving > over. Well, it plugs into the SlickSpeed (sp?) because it just looks for a $. That's the only reason I included that (optional) identifier. > >> But seriously, we've tested successfully in:- >> IE 5-8 >> FF 1-3.5 >> Safari 2-4 >> Opera 5-10 >> Netscape 3-9 >> All modes and virtually all platforms with few issues to report (and >> most of those fixed immediately). > > It would be interesting to see how you support functionality that > simply isn't possible in older browsers. Do you just not do it? If so, > then are they really "supported"? It's very simple. If functionality is impossible, the related features do not exist in the API. So you start out each app with something like:- var API; if (API && API.areFeatures('getEBCS', 'setOpacity')) { } Or, if using the OO interface, it gets even simpler:- var Q; if (Q && Q.prototype.fadeIn) { // For sure can query and fade! } If you notice, the test page demonstrates the progressive enhancement capabilities quite well (some might say stunningly--I would). The current practice is the "bull in a china shop" method (e.g. call anything and expect anything to happen). So "supported" in terms of the whole library means that features that are possible are present and work properly and features that impossible are not present. That's it. And no, not all of the above are not perfect in that regard. See the discussion group for details. > >> And take a guess which is faster. Rather, don't guess but try the the >> Speed Test. > > Have you? Will you post the results? > Huh? The Speed Test on my site. I've ran it in everything from IE8 to FF1 (and most in between). My Library kills its contemporaries (the further back you go, the larger the margin). If I add QSA support (estimated twelve lines), it will trounce all of the latest QSA wrappers (e.g. Sizzle) as well. And if you mean the TaskSpeed results, yes I will certainly post them. I'll post plenty more too. Stay tuned...
From: Ivan Marsh on 22 Jan 2010 14:42 David Mark wrote: > Having just read a post about jQuery vs. My Library, I think I need to > dispel some misunderstandings. Having just made up a post about jQuery vs. your crappy, unknown, untested software you will now spam the newsgroups. -- "All right, all right, if it will make you happy, I will overthrow society." - Philip J. Fry
From: David Mark on 22 Jan 2010 15:08
Ivan Marsh wrote: > David Mark wrote: > >> Having just read a post about jQuery vs. My Library, I think I need to >> dispel some misunderstandings. > > Having just made up a post about jQuery vs. your crappy, unknown, untested > software you will now spam the newsgroups. > What are you, stupid? Matt Kruse posted it _here_ today (or late last night). And no, I'm not posting a link. It's too soon. :) |