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: Scott Sauyet on 18 Jun 2010 22:57 "S.T." wrote: > [in response to Matt Kruse] > You are in a small subset of developers that use jQuery by choice, yet > are also highly critical of it. In fact you might be the only person > I've read that shares those characteristics. Not that there's anything > wrong with that, just a somewhat unique view. You can put me in that category as well. I find that JQuery often simplifies my development, but I recognize many flaws in it and would love to see something more solid come along to take it's place. But those need to be libraries that I would feel comfortable handing off to a client to continue with, which leaves out, for instance, My Library. At the moment, JQuery seems the best of a fairly bad bunch. But I really don't want to skip a library altogether. Yes, I trust my own skills enough to believe I could do everything that's done in those libraries, but I really don't want to spend the time. And I don't think it's *that* bad. -- Scott
From: Garrett Smith on 18 Jun 2010 23:24 On 2010-06-18 01:54 PM, Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jun 18, 12:34 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/18/2010 7:12 AM, Matt Kruse 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$q0...(a)news.eternal-september.org > > I don't see the relevance. > It seems like you believe that there are technical problems that ccan be fixed and do not agree that the problems with jQuery come from the initial API design. That's what my other post was getting at. [...] > >> Why do you think jQuery has had so many issues with upgrades? > > Primarily, because the jQuery team doesn't care much about backwards- > compatibility. > OK. I believe that complexity and loosely defined methods were reasons. >> Before reimplementing jQuery correctly, you'll first need to define what >> "correctly" means. > > To some degree, yes. But you could begin and define as you go. > Sure, if you realized previously unforeseen problems and complexity in the process. >> Documentation for the selectors are a good starting point. > > Sure, that would be fine. If I were to re-write jQuery, I would keep > Sizzle as-is, even with bugs, and just document the things that won't > work correctly. They are fairly minor, IMO. > How much have you looked into it? >> Let us know how far you get with that. > > I have no intention of doing so. And thus, the problem. The people > with the skill needed to make a great product rarely have the time or > desire to do so. The less experienced have time, patience, and a lack > of things to work on, and a desire for significance and "fame", and > therefore starting writing the next monolithic library, and it becomes > popular because they have the time to support, market, and evangelize > it. *shrugs* Well, time yes, but desire, too. What good is a large user base? Garrett
From: Andrew Poulos on 19 Jun 2010 02:45 On 19/06/2010 12:57 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote: > "S.T." wrote: >> [in response to Matt Kruse] >> You are in a small subset of developers that use jQuery by choice, yet >> are also highly critical of it. In fact you might be the only person >> I've read that shares those characteristics. Not that there's anything >> wrong with that, just a somewhat unique view. > > You can put me in that category as well. I find that JQuery often > simplifies my development, but I recognize many flaws in it and would > love to see something more solid come along to take it's place. But > those need to be libraries that I would feel comfortable handing off > to a client to continue with, which leaves out, for instance, My > Library. > > At the moment, JQuery seems the best of a fairly bad bunch. But I > really don't want to skip a library altogether. Yes, I trust my own > skills enough to believe I could do everything that's done in those > libraries, but I really don't want to spend the time. And I don't > think it's *that* bad. Make up your mind is it "fairly bad" or not "that bad". Andrew Poulos
From: S.T. on 21 Jun 2010 14:40 On 6/18/2010 7:18 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: >> The fact that most CLJ regulars (the vocal ones, at least) can't >> comprehend why there's such demand for libraries is the same reason >> their critiques of libraries are technically accurate yet largely >> ignored. They can't see in context, nor anything less rigid than a >> true/false view. > > There's only a demand because people take on javascript projects that > are beyond their skill level. This is always what I suspected a portion of the animosity was based on. A fear that opening up DOM manipulation and AJAX to the masses cheapens a particular skill set. >>> Even when someone like DM comes along and writes "His Library", he's >>> missing the point. He may get the technical aspects more correct, but >>> he lacks the vision and social grace required to make the library >>> actually useful to most developers. It's like he's created a better >>> mousetrap, but completely drops the ball on manufacturing, marketing, >>> and distribution. Whereas something like jQuery suffers from poor >>> quality, but gets the other stuff right. >> >> DM's script may be solid but the project as a whole is a train wreck. It >> wasn't a project developed to solve a problem, rather was a script >> written in an attempt to mock other libraries. It was DOA before it saw >> daylight. > > DM's library has had little objective criticism and to call it DOA when > its usage is clearly growing shows how much you know about it. Huh? What indicators show its "clearly growing"? Aside from David's 14 posts, mostly replying to himself, the "support group" shows five posts from two authors so far this month. Not exactly a booming community. I've never actually *seen* 'My Library' in use on a live site. Have you? Tough to gauge growth rates when the benchmarks hold steady at zero. Until something suggests otherwise I'll stand by my conclusion the project is dead, and always was dead, as the result of largely non-technical factors. > Why don't you just admit that you have stopped trying to discredit DM as > a person and are now trying to discredit his library both of which you > apparently know little about. I know David Mark's online persona is that of an asshat. That's about all I know about DM. Maybe he's a stand-up rational guy in the real world. I have no idea. If you think there's something more involved here, like I'm in the midst of a several-year mission to discredit a javascript library and it's author, running to various online forums constantly posting the same arguments over and over and over... well, those sorts of actions would border on lunacy. I might pop in an occasional CLJ thread and voice my opinion, but that's it. Nothing more elaborate going on. You can relax.
From: Matt Kruse on 21 Jun 2010 16:43
On Jun 18, 10:24 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It seems like you believe that there are technical problems that ccan be > fixed and do not agree that the problems with jQuery come from the > initial API design. That's what my other post was getting at. There are multiple problems of different types, including: 1. Algorthm: Some problems are simply solved in the wrong manner, giving incorrect or inconsistent results 2. API: Overloaded functions should be split into multiple functions, or in many cases just trashed. Complicated API should be simplified. 3. Design: Some of the goals of the core lib are too lofty and cannot be adequately accomplished, and should be trashed. 4. Syntax: The source is unnecessarily obfuscated and could be much more readable. > >> Documentation for the selectors are a good starting point. > > Sure, that would be fine. If I were to re-write jQuery, I would keep > > Sizzle as-is, even with bugs, and just document the things that won't > > work correctly. They are fairly minor, IMO. > How much have you looked into it? Quite a bit. Nearly as much as DM, I suppose. > What good is a large user base? A large user base is helpful because it brings out many situations and conditions that could not be predicted or found by a small development group. Even the best, most experienced js developers can't keep track of all the browser quirks and bugs out there. If the goal of a js library is to work well in many environments and situations, it's great to be exposed to thousands of different contexts that you may have never thought of. It will make the code more robust. I know that in many things I've built, I thought it worked fine until a small portion of users complained about something. Then I learned of a whole new way of thinking, or a whole new context, and I could further generalize my code. Matt Kruse |