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: Joe Nine on 17 Jun 2010 09:16 Matěj Cepl wrote: > 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. Easily offended much? I'm only pointing out that jQuery takes what is a classic C style syntax that JavaScript offers and encapsulates it in a cryptic wrapper. When it comes to cryptic commands you can't dispute that *nix has that going on at a bash prompt. Seen a complex grep or ls command ? Same applies (as I mentioned) to regexp commands. I don't like either.
From: David Mark on 17 Jun 2010 09:25 On Jun 17, 8:24 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > > 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. > > What's wrong with JsUnit? <http://www.jsunit.net/> > I believe he is revisiting his "aw U don't have any unit tests" bit. In other words, he can't find the ones for My Library.
From: David Mark on 17 Jun 2010 09:26 On Jun 17, 9:18 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:52 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > However, it touches on a core antipattern of Quooxdoo, Cappuccino and > > SproutCore. It's not a new technique. > > > It would be good for the article to do one of > > 1) focus entirely on one library > > 2) focus or a problem that is solved and show how libraries solve it, > > with examples from the library, and then show an alternative. > > 3) focus on an antipattern > > > I'm going to publish an article next week, after it has been reviewed > > and edited (the draft is being reviewed now). The article will cover > > some things here, but it is not a formal review, as I have outlined. I'd > > really like to see that, and if it is a good one, probably even more > > than the article I'm working on. > > The jealousness is great in this NG, so I am afraid it will just > another vanity fair with "what dork would do like that / what idiot > would code like this??!". I distinctly remember back in 2005-2006, > when the 2nd Browser Wars started, this NG was nearly attacked with > asks to suggests any good library, "please, please, please". The > locals could use it to push *any* programming pattern they like, > literally, so now would be getting the harvest back. Instead the > energy was spend to call sh*t on anyone not willing to write the code > from the scratch. Eventually such demands stopped, people left: for > Prototype.js, MooTools, Dojo etc. And what else was it expected? No > help from clj - no help from anywhere? It came in 2007. > > For a core library covering coding/DOM trivia the train is pretty much > gone. It is hard but very important to understand. No one gives a damn > how perfect, universal, robust, everlasting a commercial use library > is by design. The only important things are: how long is it on the > market (2years min), how many listed bugs fixed (lesser that 100 means > that at least 20-50 really nasty ones will have to be fixed with your > business loss), how good the support is. > > And the last but not least nobody really cares what library is bad and > why. People normally want to know what library is the most usable / > the best and why. If the consensus still is that there is not such > library and the only sane option is to write your own from the scratch > then it is better to stop the discussion right here so not making > another fun out of yourselves. To appreciate the deep of the fun at > the modern time, go say to comp.lang.c++.moderated and declare the > evilness of any library usage starting with STL. > > P.S. What about The Javascript Toolboxhttp://www.javascripttoolbox.com/ > by Matt Kruse as a positive starting point? Starting point?! Did you miss My Library entirely?
From: Matt Kruse on 17 Jun 2010 10:02 On Jun 17, 8:18 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > P.S. What about The Javascript Toolboxhttp://www.javascripttoolbox.com/ > by Matt Kruse as a positive starting point? Eh, some of the stuff there is terribly out-dated and I would write it very differently now. Some of it still quite solid, IMO (like table sorting and date manipulation). I wish I had time to build, maintain, improve, document, and test all the stuff that I'd like to put up there, but I don't. My goal was to build it into a toolbox that was a collection of stuff from more authors than just myself, but again, no time. The js that I'm currently working with most is http://BetterFacebook.net, which is a greasemonkey script/firefox add-on (which also works in Chrome, Safari, and Opera, I've heard) that adds a bunch of functionality to Facebook. It's a whole different kind of challenge, and it's refreshing to not have to deal with IE at all. :) Perhaps some day I will get back to my toolbox... Matt Kruse
From: Matt Kruse on 17 Jun 2010 10:09
On Jun 16, 7:52 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm going to publish an article next week, after it has been reviewed > and edited (the draft is being reviewed now). The article will cover > some things here, but it is not a formal review, as I have outlined. I'd > really like to see that, and if it is a good one, probably even more > than the article I'm working on. I doubt that any of the qualified people in this group are going to devote time to such a review. I would love to see a simple wiki where many of us could contribute to building a comprehensive, well-argued analysis of jQuery. The pros and cons. Kind of a survey of jQuery. Put it on its own domain, like jQueryReview.com or something, and you'll get a decent amount of attention, IMO. The key would be to have a one-page, printable white paper summarizing the key arguments. This could be easily printed and brought to a meeting by anyone who is trying to argue against the use of jQuery. Then the site could dig deeper into the fine print for anyone who is interested in a really technical analysis. Of course, my personal take on jQuery is still a bit different than many of the "zealots" here. I still use jQuery. For the things I use it for, I am very happy to have it. But I also have a very good understanding of its weak points, and I know how to avoid them. It is a tool, like any other. The best developers have many tools in their arsenal, and know how to pick the right tools to get a job done. There is no need, IMO, to throw out jQuery completely when it can be a useful tool in the right situations and in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing. Matt Kruse |