jquery vs dojo vs yui etc
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Interactive web-based graphs for iPads?
Next: FAQ Topic - How can I disable the back button in a web browser? (2010-06-17)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 18 Jun 2010 11:17 Johannes Baagoe wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn : >> Matt is still not getting that (JS) libraries as a concept are not the >> issue, but the people writing them. > > That, exactly, is what bothers me in those discussions : the issue seems > to be *the people* writing those libraries. Technical objections alone > would hardly justify personal smears. This has (as for me) nothing to do with personal smears. Source code is written by people, and their knowledge, experience, and personalities define the quality of the code they can produce. For example, you cannot reasonably deny that if John Resig's delusions of grandeur would not get in the way, if he would consider reading peer reviews, in time he could be writing better code. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 18 Jun 2010 11:21 Matt Kruse wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Matt Kruse wrote: >> > Perhaps you just haven't been exposed to all the cross-browser issues >> > yet? There are tons of quirks, bugs, non-standard behaviors, etc that >> > you must deal with if you write cross-browser scripts for the web, >> > where just about any browser may be used. >> Cross-browser issues have nothing to do with the programming language. > > Duh. But the discussion is about general-purpose libraries, whose main > purpose is to smooth over cross-browser issues and add functionality > for web scripting. You have destroyed the context. Duh! PointedEars -- Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
From: Johannes Baagoe on 18 Jun 2010 11:25 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn : > This has (as for me) nothing to do with personal smears. [...] > John Resig's delusions of grandeur [...] I rest my case. -- Johannes
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 18 Jun 2010 11:34 Johannes Baagoe wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn : >> This has (as for me) nothing to do with personal smears. [...] >> John Resig's delusions of grandeur [...] > > I rest my case. You have no case; you are disregarding the available evidence. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: Garrett Smith on 18 Jun 2010 13:34
On 6/18/2010 7:12 AM, Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jun 18, 7:37 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn<PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: [...] > I still believe that the way to combat jQuery and to help fix all the > junk that it has spewed on the web is to create a library with a > compatible subset of the jQuery API, and implement it correctly. Then > people can switch over to it easily and comfortably, and get the > benefit of more robust code. > You missed my outline post? Please see: MessageID: hvbr3g$q0e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org I'm going to wager you've not even started on following your own advice. If you had, you probably would have realized that the design of jQuery has fundamental problems (please see my earlier message). Why do you think jQuery has had so many issues with upgrades? Before reimplementing jQuery correctly, you'll first need to define what "correctly" means. Documentation for the selectors are a good starting point. Let us know how far you get with that. Garrett |