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: Garrett Smith on 16 Jun 2010 20:55 On 6/16/2010 5:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > David Mark wrote: > >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> David Mark wrote: >>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<j...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using >>>>> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just >>>>> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire >>>>> back when someone suggests we use one of them. >>>> >>>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so. >>>> Search the archive. >>>> >>>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly >>>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible. >>> Pure opinion. >> >> Amnesia flaring up again? :) >> >> There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements >> (as you well know). As I said, search the archive. > > Search it yourself. I must agree that the problem with what is in "the > archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless > sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting > (on your part, despite several requests to do better), if it is available > at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?). It is > unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been > thrown. So much for amnesia. > Most of the searching on google search (groups search is broken) results in developersdex and rinocerus and objectmix. Sometimes googlegroups local versions (korea, etc). > Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically > sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time. > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step > approach to be done properly. > 16 hours work, one hour per day; just have a quite writing time, two hours on the weekends. You'll be done in two weeks. Maybe you can recruit some editorial help from someone. Garrett
From: David Mark on 16 Jun 2010 20:57 On Jun 16, 8:25 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> David Mark wrote: > >> > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<j...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently > >> >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using > >> >> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just > >> >> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire > >> >> back when someone suggests we use one of them. > > >> > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.. > >> > Search the archive. > > >> > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly > >> > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible. > >> Pure opinion. > > > Amnesia flaring up again? :) > > > There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements > > (as you well know). As I said, search the archive. > > Search it yourself. Why would I do that? After all, I've seen them. > I must agree that the problem with what is in "the > archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless > sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting > (on your part, despite several requests to do better), It's odd as you just recently opined that such sloppy formatting as is found in the reviewed code could hardly be pinned on me. > if it is available > at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?). As I'm sure you know, this group is echoed on numerous Websites other than GG. A normal Google search can be used when GG's search feature is going through one of its outages. > It is > unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been > thrown. So much for amnesia. Utter nonsense. I've dissected jQuery so many times (here and elsewhere) that complaints often arise over the repetition. And the recent reviews of Dojo and Qooxdoo were as thorough as they needed to be. I don't recall you finding fault in them. > > Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically > sound peer review. Of jQuery?! > In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time. So join Garrett on the list of people who haven't written reviews of jQuery or the rest. > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step > approach to be done properly. > Whatever. Seems like a waste of time at this point (particularly for jQuery).
From: David Mark on 16 Jun 2010 21:35 On Jun 16, 8:55 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/16/2010 5:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > David Mark wrote: > > >> Garrett Smith wrote: > >>> David Mark wrote: > >>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<j...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently > >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using > >>>>> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just > >>>>> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire > >>>>> back when someone suggests we use one of them. > > >>>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.. > >>>> Search the archive. > > >>>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly > >>>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible. > >>> Pure opinion. > > >> Amnesia flaring up again? :) > > >> There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements > >> (as you well know). As I said, search the archive. > > > Search it yourself. I must agree that the problem with what is in "the > > archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless > > sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting > > (on your part, despite several requests to do better), if it is available > > at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?). It is > > unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been > > thrown. So much for amnesia. > > Most of the searching on google search (groups search is broken) results > in developersdex and rinocerus and objectmix. And presumably such reprints are unreadable for some reason? > Sometimes googlegroups > local versions (korea, etc). So skip those that aren't in your native language. > > > Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically > > sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been > > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time. > > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step > > approach to be done properly. > > 16 hours work, one hour per day; just have a quite writing time, two > hours on the weekends. Where do you come up with this stuff? > You'll be done in two weeks. Then you'll only be two and half years plus two weeks too late to be relevant. > Maybe you can > recruit some editorial help from someone. > Maybe. Speaking of hours, I want the last hour or so of my life back. You'll truly outdone yourself this time.
From: Scott Sauyet on 16 Jun 2010 21:56 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Joe Nine wrote: >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? [ ... ] > I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically > sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time. > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step > approach to be done properly. As I'm sure is clear to regulars in this group, I am not entirely in agreement with the most commonly expressed opinion here that these general purpose libraries are worthless. I have not actively defended them much, but I personally find some value in them. Yet I would also welcome such critiques. I think they could do no worse than make more public the flaws that we all know exist in these libraries. They might help improve the libraries or bring forth better ones. But, as Garrett said, such critiques would have to be thorough, detailed, technically savvy but still reader-friendly. Such prose is not particularly easy to write. I think I can write reasonably well, and will volunteer to help put such critiques into a clear form if there is someone who wants to supply the analysis. (And no, David, I don't want to search the archives to piece it together!) I would suggest that if people take this up, that it's done one library at a time. A later collection can discuss them _en masse_ if desired, but the detailed explanation of the individual libraries should come first. Garrett's outline above is a decent start, although I would prefer a critique that at least starts at a higher level than his Prototype essay. One about jQuery might start for instance discussing objections to some of the features that the jQuery community actively promotes, starting with the "find something, do something" mantra (questions about inefficiencies, about proliferation of event handlers, about whether CSS queries are ever the right way to choose elements, etc.) and perhaps hitting on chaining and the multiple meanings of the "$" function. But eventually the sorts of details Garrett exposes for Prototype would be included too. Although these are critiques, they should be expository writing and not attempt to persuade users against those particular libraries. The attitude should be one of, "If you're going to consider this library you might want to know about these problems," and not, "You should not bother with this library." As I said, I'm more than willing to help, although I won't take this on entirely myself. -- Scott
From: David Mark on 16 Jun 2010 22:26
On Jun 16, 9:56 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> Joe Nine wrote: > >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently > >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? [ ... ] > > I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically > > sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been > > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time. > > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step > > approach to be done properly. > > As I'm sure is clear to regulars in this group, I am not entirely in > agreement with the most commonly expressed opinion here that these > general purpose libraries are worthless. I have not actively defended > them much, but I personally find some value in them. > > Yet I would also welcome such critiques. I think they could do no > worse than make more public the flaws that we all know exist in these > libraries. More public? Those who have the capacity to understand the problems in jQuery should be well aware of them by now. > They might help improve the libraries or bring forth > better ones. They already have brought forth better ones. As for improvement, there is a slight flaw in your plan. The authors of - for example - jQuery and Dojo have been directly confronted with their respective (and often duplicated) failings and dismissed them out of hand (and out of sheer ignorance apparently). > > But, as Garrett said, such critiques would have to be thorough, > detailed, technically savvy but still reader-friendly. It's been done every which way. > Such prose is > not particularly easy to write. I think I can write reasonably well, > and will volunteer to help put such critiques into a clear form if > there is someone who wants to supply the analysis. (And no, David, I > don't want to search the archives to piece it together!) Here is a good jumping off point that touches on some of the general issues with jQuery (and yes, it includes links to articles and examples, as Garrett knows all too well). http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html Here's another that links to an example of jQuery futility:- http://www.cinsoft.net/size.html And the parallel threads (here and in the jQuery forum) related to element dimensions that resulted in the linked example are certainly hard to miss (each is well over a hundred posts). > > I would suggest that if people take this up, that it's done one > library at a time. It was. And most of them are yesterday's news at this point. > A later collection can discuss them _en masse_ if > desired, but the detailed explanation of the individual libraries > should come first. Well, that bit's done (over-done some have said). Written, aggregated, alternately praised and railed against, sliced, diced, syndicated, Twittered, Reddited, etc. Those who missed them must have been living in a vacuum for the past few years. > > Garrett's outline above is a decent start, although I would prefer a > critique that at least starts at a higher level than his Prototype > essay. Hmmm. I thought one of his "points" was that he "started at a higher level" (whatever that meant). > One about jQuery might start for instance discussing > objections to some of the features that the jQuery community actively > promotes, starting with the "find something, do something" mantra Repeated endlessly to the point where regulars started to complain about the repetition. > (questions about inefficiencies, about proliferation of event > handlers, That point eventually sunk in for the jQuery authors; unfortunately, their response was to attempt to can and brand delegation as "Live" (nd what a disaster that was/is). > about whether CSS queries are ever the right way to choose > elements, etc.) You'll never convince Web designers of that. It's their "in". > and perhaps hitting on chaining and the multiple > meanings of the "$" function. Classics, but nobody cares. > But eventually the sorts of details > Garrett exposes for Prototype would be included too. > > Although these are critiques, they should be expository writing and > not attempt to persuade users against those particular libraries. That would be like writing a critique about 70's models Pintos without attempting to dissuade drivers from buying them. > The > attitude should be one of, "If you're going to consider this library > you might want to know about these problems," and not, "You should not > bother with this library." That would miss the bigger picture. Browser scripting is about simple, lightweight, context-specific functions (and yes, they should be re-usable); it is *not* about magic GP libraries that attempt to solve every problem for everybody. Never has been and never will. But It's hard to convince newcomers whose experience and expertise are with other languages. It's harder still to convince Web designers, many of whom have backgrounds in graphic arts that CSS selectors are not suitable for DOM traversal. Best of luck to you though! |