Prev: clj in course material
Next: FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing todo.
From: David Mark on 27 Jul 2010 22:26
On Jul 27, 10:07 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 7:05 pm, Alan Gutierrez <a...(a)blogometer.com> wrote:
> >> dark_gf wrote:
> >> 2) Surround eval stuff with try catch and read the exception.
> > ISTM they got hung up on some obscure case of using two differnt Dojo
> > versions in the same document.  I explained that I hadn't tried that
> > (and neither had they with my branch), but couldn't say for sure what
> > the ramficiations of such a bizarre scheme would be.  That was enough
> > for them to want to cling to their old synchronous XHR/eval version
> > (which remains to this day) as in their minds, it was "well-tested"
> > and worked in "all browsers".  :)
>
> Is there a link to this conversation on one of their development
> listservs or otherwise publicly available. I'd be eager to read the
> exchange and see what reasons they gave.

They gave no reasons rooted in reality. As I mentioned, one guy
started blathering about multiple Dojo in one page. I told him to
either refrain from worrying about that until later as none of them
had bothered to do any testing in that area anyway. Others opined
that synchronous XHR was "okay". Still others referred to my rewrite
as an "optimization" that they might use for Dojo 2.0 in some future
year. It was quite a comedy of errors that ultimately led nowhere.

And they never even commented about the debugging ease. We never got
that far. Told by various higher-ups who *had* actually bothered to
download and test my branch that it was *much* faster (for reasons
that should be obvious), they implored me to post benchmarks. I told
them that the speed difference was *palpable*, so microscopic
examination was unnecessary. AFAIK, none of the "module owners" tried
it out.

Also, one of their main refrains during these (and many related)
discussions was that patches should not need to touch more than one
"module". Told that due to interdependency the patches (or merges)
would need to touch *lots* of files, they flipped. That was a major
sticking point. Collectively, they lacked the confidence to tackle
such "major" changes.

And yes, the Dojo developer mailing list archive is supposedly
public. I heard that from them a few times. They seemed to be very
concerned that their "fans" might have been reading my warnings about
the problems in the code. Of course, IIRC, the mailing list itself
was hard to find through Google (due to broken links to older forums
and mailing lists) and anyone who was not actively involved in
developing the Dojo core would have no interest in reading it (let
alone pore through the archive!)

So go ahead and delve, but remember I warned you it was a waste of
time.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 28 Jul 2010 06:39
David Mark wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> [...] Last I checked, ExtJS was a 277K+ blob that used
>> >> browser sniffing to generate a UI that was not accessible;
>> >> needlessly, I should add.
>> >
>> > Look again. It's 700K+. Or perhaps you are referring to the size
>> > after GZIP?
>> I was referring to the total size of all files in in ext-core/src/core/,
>> which AIUI would be the minimum code required to make ExtJS work. But
>> the difference doesn't really matter here, does it?
>
> In what way? Certainly when it comes to bad code, it's in for a
> penny...
>
> Or perhaps you refer to the OP's use of "framework" which implies that
> they are likely using the various widgets as well (pushing the
> required payload over 700K).

No, I was not referring to that.

> Either way, it's a problem.

No doubt about that, but whether it is 277K+ or 700K+ does not really matter
to me; it is too much in either case.


PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
From: David Mark on 28 Jul 2010 15:07
On Jul 28, 6:39 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de>
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> David Mark wrote:
> >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> [...]  Last I checked, ExtJS was a 277K+ blob that used
> >> >> browser sniffing to generate a UI that was not accessible;
> >> >> needlessly, I should add.
>
> >> > Look again.  It's 700K+.  Or perhaps you are referring to the size
> >> > after GZIP?
> >> I was referring to the total size of all files in in ext-core/src/core/,
> >> which AIUI would be the minimum code required to make ExtJS work.  But
> >> the difference doesn't really matter here, does it?
>
> > In what way?  Certainly when it comes to bad code, it's in for a
> > penny...
>
> > Or perhaps you refer to the OP's use of "framework" which implies that
> > they are likely using the various widgets as well (pushing the
> > required payload over 700K).
>
> No, I was not referring to that.

Oh, sorry. :)

>
> > Either way, it's a problem.
>
> No doubt about that, but whether it is 277K+ or 700K+ does not really matter
> to me; it is too much in either case.

Yes, by far. And their new "mobile" version is 228K, so they haven't
learned anything from their previous failures.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: clj in course material
Next: FYI: Creating circular references is a perfectly OK thing todo.