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 17 Jun 2010 10:21 On Jun 17, 10:09 am, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > 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. You understand that the double-quotes are typically used to indicate sarcasm. Not that I'm arguing with you. > I still use jQuery. Yes, we've been over that. :( > For the things I use > it for, I am very happy to have it. I wouldn't claim that. > But I also have a very good > understanding of its weak points, and I know how to avoid them. You're welcome. > It is > a tool, like any other. A very bad tool. > The best developers have many tools in their > arsenal, and know how to pick the right tools to get a job done. And jQuery is never the right tool. It's basically a 70K QSA wrapper these days. The rest is never-finished nonsense. And yes, I know, you wrote/write for an IE6-only environment. You couldn't have picked a worse environment to use such a "tool". And I think you know this (or I hope you do as we went over the salient issues a hundred times). > 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. Name one (a situation). And no, you don't know what you are doing. Going on three years later and that point is quite clear.
From: Matt Kruse on 17 Jun 2010 10:37 On Jun 17, 9:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > But I also have a very good > > understanding of its weak points, and I know how to avoid them. > You're welcome. You've pointed out some. I've discovered many things on my own (things you would never encounter, since you don't actually use it). > And jQuery is never the right tool. The "free market" disagrees with you. At least for now. > > 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. > Name one (a situation). I know better than to waste my time arguing specifics with you. There's no value in trying to convince you of anything. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 17 Jun 2010 10:38 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? > > For a core library covering coding/DOM trivia the train is pretty much > gone. Has left the station? You know, it's odd; all of the "majors" have botched basic attribute manipulation. That's hardly trivia. After all, DOM stands for Document Object Model. And what are documents made of? At the "atomic" level? That's right. The train crashed right after it left. http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html > It is hard but very important to understand. And apparently none of the authors of the "major" libraries understand it at all. > No one gives a damn > how perfect, universal, robust, everlasting a commercial use library > is by design. That makes no sense at all. The code is transparent and often obvious. When I see code like:- function removeAttr(el, name) { el.removeAttribute(el, name); } ....as is found in Dojo and jQuery. Well, actually; IIRC, jQuery adds a mystical incantation to try to compensate for a "mysterious" problem they have yet to understand (a problem that is well over ten years old). function removeAttr(el, name) { el[name] = ''; el.removeAttribute(el, name); } Similarly botched renditions of hasAttribute, setAttribute and (most importantly for the query engines) getAttribute can be found in:- - jQuery - Prototype - Dojo - Goog (Closure) - Qooxdoo - YUI - Cappuccino - etc., etc. What a spectacular train wreck. And for the last few years, those who read this group have had these lessons drilled into them (whether they liked it or not). What possible excuse do the authors of the above efforts have at this point? > The only important things are: how long is it on the > market (2years min), What?! The longer it has been on the market, presuming it is as botched as the above libraries and frameworks, the less capable the authors (at research, reading for comprehension, problem solving, etc.). Think about it. > 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 we know full well about the "support" provided by the "major" efforts. > > And the last but not least nobody really cares what library is bad and > why. Then can I presume nobody cares what library is good and why? I guess nobody cares about anything on your planet. :) > People normally want to know what library is the most usable / > the best and why. And what does "best" imply? > If the consensus still is that there is not such > library and the only sane option is to write your own from the scratch You are the only person here who keeps parroting that "from scratch" line year after year. It's famously *not* something that is recommended here. Just as you are famous in your way. > then it is better to stop the discussion right here so not making > another fun out of yourselves. There's no need to make fun of you Veek. Your posts are funny enough in their own right. And I see you as a tragic figure, dug so deep in a hole of blunders and misstatements that you have no shot at ever seeing the light of day again. Give it up.
From: David Mark on 17 Jun 2010 10:50 On Jun 17, 10:44 am, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <7313e001-78c8-4b17-aa39-72e5a420e...(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > > [stuff] > > After all these posts, I'm none the wiser: what is the problem these > libraries are trying to solve? > That's the problem. They are trying to solve everything for everybody. Doesn't make sense for scripts that must be downloaded, does it? One big "issue" is cross-browser compatibility, which most "solve" by peering at browsers endlessly and then adding browser sniffs to their code. They then declare the scripts to be compatible with library X, Y and Z (current versions only). When the next slew of major browsers emerge, they go through it all again. That means more downloads for the developers, more testing and ultimately more downloads (and forced browser upgrades) for the hapless end-users. None of it makes any sense, does it? :)
From: David Mark on 17 Jun 2010 10:54
On Jun 17, 10:37 am, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 9:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > But I also have a very good > > > understanding of its weak points, and I know how to avoid them. > > You're welcome. > > You've pointed out some. I've discovered many things on my own (things > you would never encounter, since you don't actually use it). > > > And jQuery is never the right tool. > > The "free market" disagrees with you. At least for now. Popularity does not indicate the quality of the tools. In fact, in this case, the people choosing the tools have no clue how to judge their quality. So it's even less meaningful a metric for JS libraries, isn't it? Popularity is usually an indicator of lots of shiny graphics and disingenuous marketing. > > > > 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. > > Name one (a situation). > > I know better than to waste my time arguing specifics with you. That's sensible as you've been routed so thoroughly in the past. > There's no value in trying to convince you of anything. > What a lame argument that is. Worse than usual. :( |