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: Andrew Poulos on 7 Aug 2010 02:35 On 7/08/2010 10:01 AM, Garrett Smith wrote: > On 2010-07-14 09:58 PM, David Mark wrote: >> On Jun 18, 11:06 am, Johannes Baagoe<baa...(a)baagoe.com> 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. >>> >> When choosing a script, the relative proficiency of the author(s) is >> certainly relevant. > > The code itself is what matters. That are implies that incompetent authors can and do write "good" code. Andrew Poulos
From: Garrett Smith on 7 Aug 2010 03:44 On 2010-08-06 11:35 PM, Andrew Poulos wrote: > On 7/08/2010 10:01 AM, Garrett Smith wrote: >> On 2010-07-14 09:58 PM, David Mark wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 11:06 am, Johannes Baagoe<baa...(a)baagoe.com> 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. >>>> >>> When choosing a script, the relative proficiency of the author(s) is >>> certainly relevant. >> >> The code itself is what matters. > > That are implies that incompetent authors can and do write "good" code. > I'd be more likely to trust code from a source I know is reliable but when it comes to assessing the code, the code alone should be assessed. And if it's not good code, then the mistakes can be pointed out so the author can learn from them. -- Garrett
From: RobG on 7 Aug 2010 06:46 On Aug 7, 2:18 am, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 8/5/2010 4:54 PM, RobG wrote: > > > The examples suggest someone who uses jQuery because they don't want > > to maintain their own (or a development team's) library of proven > > code. Such libraries require effort to develop, support and maintain, > > but the payback is worth it. > > So you agree JS libraries are generally a good idea... Where a library is a repository of reusable code, yes. > you just think > every developer should write and maintain their own. Why not? Developers would learn a lot by developing their own libraries as a professional development exercise and for potential use for small jobs where a larger library is not required. > The jQuery project should be scrapped Preferably it will be replaced by one or more competent libraries that are used for projects where such a libraries are beneficial. -- Rob
From: John G Harris on 7 Aug 2010 08:17 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 at 09:18:01, in comp.lang.javascript, S.T. wrote: <snip> >So you agree JS libraries are generally a good idea... If they are competent. >you just think every developer should write and maintain their own. If they can't find a competent one, or can't find one that does just what's needed without extra unused bloat. >The jQuery project should be scrapped Yup! My ISP uses jQuery. It isn't compatible with my up to date IE8. >and replaced by tens of thousands of individually developed and >maintained general purpose DOM/Ajax libraries. <snip> You seem to be having trouble thinking straight. (Hint : there are more than two choices.) John -- John Harris
From: David Mark on 7 Aug 2010 23:56
On Aug 6, 12:18 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On 8/5/2010 4:54 PM, RobG wrote: > > > The examples suggest someone who uses jQuery because they don't want > > to maintain their own (or a development team's) library of proven > > code. Such libraries require effort to develop, support and maintain, > > but the payback is worth it. > > So you agree JS libraries are generally a good idea... Virtually any re-usable bit of code written in JS could be (and often is) called a "library". Thus the term is generally meaningless. > you just think > every developer should write and maintain their own. No, that's the old "write everything from scratch as the only alternative" non-argument. > > The jQuery project should be scrapped and replaced by tens of thousands > of individually developed and maintained general purpose DOM/Ajax > libraries. The "jQuery project" is just a bad script that's been demonstrated to fail at virtually everything it has tried to do. It's become a symbol of JS futility, just like Prototype and countless others like it. > Perhaps hundreds of thousands. Each one slowly expanded over > time as a developer comes to realize he/she would find value in another > bit of reusable functionality in his arsenal. When you consider how bad jQuery has been demonstrated to be, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to for everyone to use it for everything, does it? |