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: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 00:00 On Aug 6, 7:48 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-17 07:12 PM, David Mark wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 9:41 pm, Garrett Smith<dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> One thing that I have wanted to change is the "Avoid modifying objects > >> you don't own. ". While that is a nice trite phrase, it doesn't cover > >> the aspects of defining cohesive objects. > > > I think it gets the point across. It's very easy to by accident (or > > in haste). > > Which point? The point about not modifying objects you don't own. > > > > >> "Define cohesive objects" is better but that does not imply that doing > >> the opposite is wrong. > > > In contrast, I don't know what that means; so the first one is > > definitely better. > > Any programmer should know what cohesion is. Google is your friend. That's not what I said. Google yourself. > > The reason "don't modify objects you don't own" isn't enough is that, > say, Joe Coder creates and ADT* Menu and puts that in Menu.js, then he > creates an ADT FlyMenu and puts that in FlyMenu.js. So far so good. Then > he realizes that for FlyMenu, the show behavior needs to be different, > and so within FlyMenu.js, he modifies Menu.js. This creates a coupling > so that when FlyMenu is used, it works, but when Menu is used and > FlyMenu.js is on the same page, Menu doesn't work the same. See, that's a completely different point. > > According to code guidelines doc, that's allowable. You lost me, doc.
From: David Mark on 8 Aug 2010 00:05
On Aug 6, 8:01 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> 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. Try to follow me on this. Authors who don't know what they are doing usually attempt to "solve" problems by mystical incantation. That never leads to good code. So if you know the relative proficiency of the author(s) is poor you can skip wading through their magic spells. > > Though it might make you angry, in the case of an author such as > yourself, I can see why some might make an exception to that. How can something that makes no sense make me angry? > > It was also once claimed that you threatened to sue John Resig while he > was in the midst of publicly discussing porting over your tests. I'll sue anyone who tries to steal material bearing my copyright. And you are really all over the map here. Try to focus. > if that > is true, then I can see why one in John Resig's position would want to > avoid using your code. You mean why he would try to avoid (blatantly) stealing my code. And, again, this has no relevance to the fact that jQuery is junk. Whether I posted a library or not, it's still junk. |