My Library _passes_ TaskSpeed in IE < 7
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: A good opportunity to investment
Next: FAQ Topic - Why does framename.print() not print the correct frame in IE? (2010-02-19)
From: Matt Kruse on 23 Feb 2010 21:54 On Feb 23, 6:33 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What it means for something to work is that that thing fulfills a > contract of functioning in the way it has been specified to function. Very little - if any - software "fulfills a contract of functioning" 100% of the time, without problems. I use many pieces of software every day that surely have countless unresolved bugs. Yet they still provide much value to me. I'd say they "work" as long as those problems do not cause a problem for me, despite their existence. In that vain, jQuery "works" because it does not cause a problem for most users, despite its flaws. It works. Perfectly? No. But it works. The idealistic, unachievable goal of software development is bug-free perfection. No piece of software - including jQuery - should be judged by that measure. Instead, you have to look at the big picture and many factors, of which technical robustness if just one. Matt Kruse
From: Matt Kruse on 23 Feb 2010 23:19 On Feb 23, 9:18 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I use many pieces of software > > every day that surely have countless unresolved bugs. Yet they still > > provide much value to me. > So what? It's stupid to stick with something you _know_ is broken when > better alternatives have existed for _years_. Your logic is flawed. I know technically better alternatives exist than Windows, yet I still use it. Again, the point you never seem to acknowledge - there are more factors than just the technical quality of a solution. You continually choose to ignore that. > You are just babbling (as usual). This is how you dismiss any statement you don't like. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 23:30 Matt Kruse wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:18 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> I use many pieces of software >>> every day that surely have countless unresolved bugs. Yet they still >>> provide much value to me. >> So what? It's stupid to stick with something you _know_ is broken when >> better alternatives have existed for _years_. > > Your logic is flawed. I know technically better alternatives exist > than Windows, yet I still use it. Your focus is blurry. We are talking about browser scripting libraries, specifically jQuery. You have been waffling for years about it. It's broken, it's not, etc. The end result is you still defend this silly script, which is getting worse every day. You do realize that the whole "Sizzle" thing is a fraud, right? It's a superficial speed boost at the expense of (even more) inconsistent behavior. Meanwhile, gEBI, gEBTN, etc. are virtually 100% reliable cross-browser (even in off-brands, older versions of the majors, mobile UA's, etc.) It's madness to continue on the jQuery course at this point (as, in reality, has been for years). > Again, the point you never seem to > acknowledge - there are more factors than just the technical quality > of a solution. You continually choose to ignore that. Not when it comes to a silly (and fairly trivial) script that is little more than an awkward QSA wrapper at this point. And, of course, in browsers without QSA, it works slightly differently. Consistency was supposed to be the selling point of this thing, remember? Well, and "conciseness" which is ludicrous as it is a 70K hit to start with. And speed, which we know is a joke at this point. What's left to cling to? A brand name? > >> You are just babbling (as usual). > > This is how you dismiss any statement you don't like. > No, babbling is babbling (and that's seemingly all you are good for).
From: Matt Kruse on 23 Feb 2010 23:35 On Feb 23, 5:03 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Every time I point out one of > jQuery's many flaws, you claim it isn't something you care about. Not quite, but it would be fair if I did. It's similar to you pointing out that my car will blow up if I push it to 120mph on a Sunday during a full moon. That's interesting, but if I know that I will never do that, then it's not a convincing argument for me to stop driving it. > Did you care about ActiveX being disabled in corporate environments > before I pointed out that jQuery would unceremoniously blow up in such > cases No > or were you oblivious like the jQuery developers? Yeah, they > eventually fixed it (after I beat them over the head with it for > _years_) Actually, I politely pointed it out to them and it was fixed the same day. I got results, you didn't. > That's ridiculous. If you can't measure an element's dimensions or read > its attributes with any reasonable reliability, you can't possibly have > a firm DOM scripting foundation. You read like a wikipedia article on logical fallacies. > That's also ridiculous. I've had far more impact on your "real world" > than you care to admit. Who is it that keeps getting things fixed in > jQuery (for example?) Sure as hell not you. In fact, you have tried to > parrot my ideas to jQuery from time to time and are usually shouted > down. We've seen it over and over, so why continue to delude yourself? jQuery forum archives surely point to the opposite. You know what would be interesting, DM? If you wrote up a convincing article detailing the reasons why a developer should use My Library instead of jQuery, and the process by which they should do so. You could target it at business web app developers, for example. Be sure to cover all the factors that would matter to such a user of jQuery, not just technical points about attributes and dimensions. That writeup might actually be useful. Do I expect you to actually do anything like that? Umm, no. Of course not. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 23:55
Matt Kruse wrote: > On Feb 23, 5:03 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Every time I point out one of >> jQuery's many flaws, you claim it isn't something you care about. > > Not quite, but it would be fair if I did. You don't care that a query-based DOM scripting library can't query straight? Then I guess you don't care about cross-browser (or even cross-IE!) consistency. That's an odd stance. > > It's similar to you pointing out that my car will blow up if I push it > to 120mph on a Sunday during a full moon. That's interesting, but if I > know that I will never do that, then it's not a convincing argument > for me to stop driving it. Another ridiculous comparison. When very basic queries fail to achieve consistent results, even in the very latest browsers, it's time to admit defeat (though it is clear you never will). > >> Did you care about ActiveX being disabled in corporate environments >> before I pointed out that jQuery would unceremoniously blow up in such >> cases > > No But anyone aspiring to publish documents to the _Web_ better care about it. > >> or were you oblivious like the jQuery developers? Yeah, they >> eventually fixed it (after I beat them over the head with it for >> _years_) > > Actually, I politely pointed it out to them and it was fixed the same > day. I got results, you didn't. No, you would never have even _known_ about it if I hadn't pointed it out over and over as a ridiculous oversight. Cause and effect. > >> That's ridiculous. If you can't measure an element's dimensions or read >> its attributes with any reasonable reliability, you can't possibly have >> a firm DOM scripting foundation. > > You read like a wikipedia article on logical fallacies. And how do such articles read? You really are king of inappropriate (and often incomprehensible) similes. > >> That's also ridiculous. I've had far more impact on your "real world" >> than you care to admit. Who is it that keeps getting things fixed in >> jQuery (for example?) Sure as hell not you. In fact, you have tried to >> parrot my ideas to jQuery from time to time and are usually shouted >> down. We've seen it over and over, so why continue to delude yourself? > > jQuery forum archives surely point to the opposite. You say that assuming I won't bother to post links to your futile attempts to communicate my ideas (the selected option "issue" in Webkit comes to mind). And how about that 100+ post thread about attr? That went nowhere (and it was a full two years after I first raised the issue with Resig). They are clearly not capable of writing a cross-browser script and you are clearly ineffectual at enlightening them. Perhaps you are too polite to be effective? Personally, I wouldn't bother with them at this point. > > You know what would be interesting, DM? Gee, what MK? > If you wrote up a convincing > article detailing the reasons why a developer should use My Library > instead of jQuery, and the process by which they should do so. Why would that interest you? You should know the basic reasons by now. > You > could target it at business web app developers, for example. Be sure > to cover all the factors that would matter to such a user of jQuery, > not just technical points about attributes and dimensions. That > writeup might actually be useful. It's been done to death (sans any mention of My Library). And I grow weary of you dismissing attribute issues as attributes are the basic building blocks of elements, which add up to documents, which are then queried (often by attributes). How you can ignore the fact that you can't get/set dimensions of elements (or documents or windows) consistently with this magic 70K+ blob of JS is also beyond belief. What does it do right again? > > Do I expect you to actually do anything like that? Umm, no. Of course > not. You should have all of the information you need at this point. And what sort of a disingenuous crank would say something like that after I published a 10000+ example (in part due to their incessant badgering) and enough reasons to switch to it to choke a newsgroup. :) |