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 22:43 On 6/16/2010 6:56 PM, Scott Sauyet 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? [ ... ] [...] > 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, I agree with both of those. It's not easy to write that stuff and yes, you do write reasonably well. > > 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. > The $ function was mentioned in the PrototypeJS review. | What Does $ Do? | | * $ does not have a clearly defined meaning as to what the function | actually does. | * The dollar sign is intended to be reserved for machine-generated | code. | | PrototypeJS $ function gets an element or array of elements. Calling | $ results in a bare minimum of three function calls: $, isString, and | Element.extend and a maximum of over 135 function calls. I took a look at the "find something, do something" mantra/pattern here: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/6479712b867c30d1?dmode=source [...] Garrett
From: Garrett Smith on 16 Jun 2010 23:58 On 6/16/2010 8:11 PM, David Mark wrote: > On Jun 16, 10:32 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/16/2010 6:29 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >>> On Jun 16, 8:43 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, 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 done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some >>>>> of it recently. >> >>>> That is untrue. >> >>> History says otherwise. >> >>>> I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours. >> >>> Then I assume you've done so repeatedly at gunpoint. >> >> Lets be very clear on this: There is nothing of yours that I have >> copied. Ever. > > Let's be very clear. You have. Perhaps, for whatever reason, you > don't even realize it. > >> >> If you believe otherwise, then it's time for you to get very specific >> with an example. > > Haven't we been over *that* enough times? Start with your recent > obsession with queries and attributes vis-a-vis jQuery. > So let me get this straight: I reviewed code from jQuery. This bothers you because you believe that I copied you. Did I get that right? [...] > > All I know is that you've done neither. Meanwhile, my patterns have > found their way into all of the "major" libraries. Yours too I'm > sure. > [...] I've looked for, but found no unit tests. If I'm going to use something, I want to run tests on it to verify the edge cases. Garrett
From: Joe Nine on 17 Jun 2010 03:10 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jun 16, 1:34 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? > > A post like this in here is like throwing row meat into a tank of > piranhas. > > Enjoy! > > Matt Kruse You weren't wrong. There are too many replies to respond to individually so I'll do just one here. Yes I searched and found no links to any convincing well presented breakdown of what jQuery and dojo's major headline flaws are. I'll be saving a copy of those listed in here by Garrett as a few arguments to keep handy. My main motivation to find a good (few) link(s) are twofold. One, when turning down a job offer recently I made up various excuses but I really wanted to add that part of the reason (not a huge part, but a part) was that jQuery was playing a large role in their projects. I've seen enough examples of code that's using jQuery on here to know that I don't want to become a jQuery programmer - it's like it's own new language with an ugly perl-like syntax. I guess it's one for the programmers that prefer unix. I'm a windows guy myself and like "classic syntax" languages. I guess that's why I've never got into complex regular expressions either. The other reason is that I overheard someone in my department saying "perhaps we should use jQuery". I want to be ready with my arguments against that when/if the time comes. Just being able to quote hearsay from here won't cut it. Links to concise articles help.
From: Matěj Cepl on 17 Jun 2010 03:31 Dne 17.6.2010 09:10, Joe Nine napsal(a): > I guess it's one for the programmers that prefer unix. Please, don't offend us (Linux|Unix) users. I don't see any relation between using U*X and distaste for replacing one neatly designed functional language with some horrible hack pretending to be one. Matěj -- Give your heartache to him. (1Pt 5,7; Mt 11:28-30)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 17 Jun 2010 04:15
David Mark wrote: > 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. > > Why would I do that? So that you could think yourself into the position people you want to reach and realize the difficulties they could have with your "go and search for yourself" suggestion. > After all, I've seen them. You miss the point. >> 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. AISB, the issues I have are not primarily with the formatting of the reviewed code in the reviews. It is with the formatting of the comments (you) made about them in the context of those reviews. >> 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. You are missing the point that you want something from your readers (to think twice about using certain code). It is not logical to assume that they would go to great lengths to find evidence for that. >> It is unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have >> been thrown. So much for amnesia. > > Utter nonsense. Hey, that's *my* line! > I've dissected jQuery so many times (here and > elsewhere) that complaints often arise over the repetition. IMHO, complaints are directed more at the way of the review. Since you cannot assume that previous reviews have been read, the trick is to not show to the reader in a new review that it annoys you to have to write the same thing again. After all, they are really not interested in learning *that*. > And the recent reviews of Dojo and Qooxdoo were as thorough as they > needed to be. As they needed to be *for you*. But you must realize that this is not sufficient to *convince* others. > I don't recall you finding fault in them. TLDR, for the most part. Do you realize the problem? >> Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and >> theoretically sound peer review. > > Of jQuery?! Especially 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. I might. >> 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). If that is your opinion, you should not be surprised that you do not come off as very convincing for the most part. For besides technical knowledge it is convincing people that you need to be good at in order to turn people that you don't know away from jQuery and the like. And I am sorry to say that this does not appear to be your forté. I am not saying that it is mine either, but at least I am basically willing to give it a try. That is where we apparently differ. PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> |