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 11:02 On Jun 17, 10:38 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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); Oops, it's not quite that bad, is it? el.removeAttribute(name); Still botched beyond belief though. One freaking line of code (two if by jQuery). Basic CRUD for documents broken by design (apparently never to be fixed). You can't make this stuff up. :)
From: VK on 17 Jun 2010 11:04 On Jun 17, 6:44 pm, 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? Ever since NN3/IE3 slash, so since it became important to care of more than one specific platform, the JavaScript libraries are solving these problem: 1) Provide a reusable subroutines/interfaces for universally frequent tasks (client-side form pre-validation is the oldest one) 2) To cover with a top level interface different and traditionally numerous native DOM interfaces discrepancies and bugs of different UA producers (layer positioning and viewport size calculations among the oldest one). 3) To add custom methods that was originally considered as non-needed one by specs producers (getElementsByClassName for a sample). 4) To add a functionality that otherwise requires many ours of developments and some particular knowledge not universally presented even among experienced programmers (3D vector graphics and animated 3D object matrix transformations for SVG/VML for a sample). 5) Rather new one and not so common: adjusting the top level programming paradigm to emulate some non-JavaScript paradigm with is more traditional for a given target audience (C/C++ class-like in Prototype.js for a sample).
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 17 Jun 2010 11:15 Joe Nine wrote: > 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. But the lesson that John Resig hasn't learned from Unices is its paradigm "one tool for one purpose". It is what makes the (POSIX/Unixoid) shell maybe a little bit crpytic for newcomers (it isn't really once you've grasped the basics), but very powerful, without adding needless complexity; much in contrast to jQuery. Pointed"f y cn rd ths y mst hv bn sng nx :)"Ears -- 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>
From: Jeremy J Starcher on 17 Jun 2010 11:21 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:15:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Pointed"f y cn rd ths y mst hv bn sng nx :)"Ears If only it was that easy. I can handle dropping all vowels, but I fear I'll never be able to spell 'umount' or 'creat' properly again.
From: Jeremy J Starcher on 17 Jun 2010 11:21
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:15:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Pointed"f y cn rd ths y mst hv bn sng nx :)"Ears If only it was that easy. I can handle dropping all vowels, but I fear I'll never be able to spell 'umount' or 'creat' properly again. |