jQuery 1.4.2 buggy
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 21 Mar 2010 19:13 Hans-Georg Michna wrote: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:19:58 -0400, David Mark wrote: > >> Well, it's not jQuery, but:- >> >> http://www.cinsoft.net/mylib.html >> >> is a far sight better. > > David, > > the weak point is the mostly missing documentation. Missing? I don't think so. The OO documentation is truly lagging behind at this point though. I'm working on that. In the meantime, see the TaskSpeed tests. Comparing the various sets of test functions for each library should be enlightening. Despite its many documented flaws, the suite does at least allow you to compare techniques for common tasks between the various libraries (hover over a result to see the function that returned it). > How can I > use Your Library if I don't know what it does? > It is My Library (the "my" refers to you). Start with a minimal build (optimally the features that interest you) and see the examples on the builder test page. There is even a console to view the internal machinations in real time. Then there is the Examples page, the discussion forum and the (there is you look) documentation. Barring that, you can ask me. It's worked for a lot of people so far. :)
From: Stefan Weiss on 21 Mar 2010 21:49 On 19/03/10 19:51, David Mark wrote: > Thomas Allen wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2:42 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Root mean square? >> >> At the risk of having no sense of humor, RMS is a common abbreviation >> for Richard Matthew Stallman, founder of the GNU project and all- >> around FOSS (free, open-source-software) fanatic. > > No worries, Thomas; I don't know him from Richard Dean Anderson. :) At the risk of having no sense of humor, IMHO, some deeper understanding about the free/open software movement and the philosophies and individuals at its center could greatly benefit your project. Much as I loved MacGyver as a kid, RMS has a rather more profound message than "all I need now is a hairpin and some bubblegum". You are now the author of an open source library, and you apparently want people to participate in your effort. Some anecdotal feedback from one potential user (=me): I think your library has a lot of potential, but I wouldn't dream of actually using it unless and until it is truly open. And that means open sourcing all of it, including the builder and the raw source it uses. It also means having a public bug tracking system and a public code repository (with versioning and releases) which contains all of the code required to build and maintain the project. The current builder code may be messy, and ASP may not be the way to go, but having it out in the open is way better than having no source available at all. At this point, your library's usefulness to me is limited to downloading it every couple of months to see how you deal with some particular problem, much like I periodically download YUI, jQuery, Dojo, and some of the others. I don't see the point of using it, or participating in its development, when it could just go away in the blink of an eye. You said in a previous post (when I asked about opensourcing the builder) that you weren't likely to lose interest in developing the library anytime soon. Well, there are other things that could happen. You could get hit by a truck, you could win the lottery and decide to chill on the Bahamas for a few years, or you could get convicted of murder and spend 15 years to life in prison (don't laugh, that's exactly what happened to the main developer of the ReiserFS file system - luckily for the users, his project is completely open). I hope this didn't sound too much like a lecture, I'm only offering some constructive criticism. A couple of days ago, you asked someone else in this group why he wasn't using "My Library"; this is the answer I would have given in his place. I am a firm supporter of open source, and I was delighted to hear that you decided to open up your library (I remember a post from one or two years ago, which sounded more like "I'm not stupid, to give away my code for free when I could make money with it" - not an exact quote, I can't find the source at the moment). If you follow through with the rest, it would be a big motivational factor for developers like me. While I'm on the topic of criticism... I know you don't like to hear it, but a little more diplomacy on your part could also work wonders for building up a community. Technical brilliance is only part of the whole. You can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they say. (PS: not sure about the vinegar bit, I never actually tried it. From what I've seen on farms, you could probably catch even more flies if you've got a cow in your apartment, but I can't think about a good open source analogy involving cows, so I'll just leave it at that.) -- stefan
From: RobG on 21 Mar 2010 22:32 On Mar 22, 11:49 am, Stefan Weiss <krewech...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > While I'm on the topic of criticism... I know you don't like to hear it, > but a little more diplomacy on your part could also work wonders for > building up a community. Technical brilliance is only part of the whole. > You can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they say. > > (PS: not sure about the vinegar bit, I never actually tried it. From > what I've seen on farms, you could probably catch even more flies if > you've got a cow in your apartment, but I can't think about a good open > source analogy involving cows, so I'll just leave it at that.) You can attract a lot more flies with a cart load of manure, but you can't judge the quality of the bull by the volume of its excrement or the number of flies attracted thereto. :-) -- Rob
From: David Mark on 22 Mar 2010 00:42 Stefan Weiss wrote: > On 19/03/10 19:51, David Mark wrote: >> Thomas Allen wrote: >>> On Mar 19, 2:42 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Root mean square? >>> At the risk of having no sense of humor, RMS is a common abbreviation >>> for Richard Matthew Stallman, founder of the GNU project and all- >>> around FOSS (free, open-source-software) fanatic. >> No worries, Thomas; I don't know him from Richard Dean Anderson. :) > > At the risk of having no sense of humor, IMHO, some deeper understanding > about the free/open software movement and the philosophies and > individuals at its center could greatly benefit your project. Much as I > loved MacGyver as a kid, RMS has a rather more profound message than > "all I need now is a hairpin and some bubblegum". Never saw that show. The name just popped up as close to the other one. But yeah, I guess he was MacGuyer, wasn't he? :) > > You are now the author of an open source library, and you apparently > want people to participate in your effort. Sure! > Some anecdotal feedback from > one potential user (=me): I think your library has a lot of potential, > but I wouldn't dream of actually using it unless and until it is truly > open. And that means open sourcing all of it, including the builder and > the raw source it uses. I should make it clear that the raw source is completely open. If you do a full build, that's the same as the minified version on the Downloads page, but with white space and comments. Granted, I should periodically do that and upload it to the repository in that form. > It also means having a public bug tracking > system and a public code repository (with versioning and releases) which > contains all of the code required to build and maintain the project. Well there has been no release yet. I am about three months in to the second wave of development (first wave was years ago and really just to create an example of what was possible). 1.0 is around the corner. And then there will definitely be an unminified (and inviolate) copy in the repository. As for bug tracking. I haven't looked into the capabilities of GG in that respect yet. For now, the forum is the primary resource for that. > The > current builder code may be messy, and ASP may not be the way to go, but > having it out in the open is way better than having no source available > at all. Sure. I'll get to that. There's been some talk of porting it too. I'm all for it. > > At this point, your library's usefulness to me is limited to downloading > it every couple of months to see how you deal with some particular > problem, much like I periodically download YUI, jQuery, Dojo, and some > of the others. Please take my advice and forget about referencing YUI, jQuery and Dojo. You will just have to un-learn a lot of BS that you could have been blissfully unaware of. And don't assume that everything in My Library is gold either. There are definitely lots of things I would do differently these days (which is where my series of primers comes in). I am working to clean up My Library where needed. The massive scope is a hindrance of course (as is the fact that I am the only one working on it at the moment). And there are definitely bugs too. I report them to the forum when I see them and generally fix them in short order. > I don't see the point of using it, or participating in > its development, when it could just go away in the blink of an eye. The source lives forever. > You > said in a previous post (when I asked about opensourcing the builder) > that you weren't likely to lose interest in developing the library > anytime soon. But, even as it sits, it's proven to have a hell of s shelf life. ;) > Well, there are other things that could happen. You could > get hit by a truck, you could win the lottery and decide to chill on the > Bahamas for a few years, or you could get convicted of murder and spend > 15 years to life in prison (don't laugh, that's exactly what happened to > the main developer of the ReiserFS file system - luckily for the users, > his project is completely open). Yeah, that guy I have heard of. He was profiled on one of those tabloid TV shows. What a jackass. I mean, it's bad enough to murder your mail-order bride, but IIRC, he had a chance to skate with a slap on the wrist because the authorities couldn't find the body. He went to trial, had the ego to actually testify, his performance was panned by all involved and he got triple the time. That's what hubris can do to you. > > I hope this didn't sound too much like a lecture, I'm only offering some > constructive criticism. I welcome any and all criticism. Trouble is, I don't often get anything but goofy comments from fanboys. :( > A couple of days ago, you asked someone else in > this group why he wasn't using "My Library"; this is the answer I would > have given in his place. I think that was tongue-in-cheek. I've made it quite clear that I think most developers should not be using any GP library (mine or otherwise). > I am a firm supporter of open source, and I was > delighted to hear that you decided to open up your library (I remember a > post from one or two years ago, which sounded more like "I'm not stupid, > to give away my code for free when I could make money with it" - not an > exact quote, I can't find the source at the moment). I mined that territory for all it was worth. It was a great loss-leader for a number of years. Lately I haven't needed it. ;) > If you follow > through with the rest, it would be a big motivational factor for > developers like me. I am sure I will get around to open sourcing the builder. But you realize it's not that difficult to split up from the full build (at lest the lion's share of it). It's built in a progression of layers, rather than a spider's web of interdependencies. > > While I'm on the topic of criticism... I know you don't like to hear it, > but a little more diplomacy on your part could also work wonders for > building up a community. Perhaps, but I gotta be me. If not me, then who? :) > Technical brilliance is only part of the whole. > You can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they say. I don't want to do a disservice to my readers by being disingenuous. Yeah, I know I can be harsh. But strong words are what get through. It is like water dripping on concrete with a lot of these other efforts (i.e. the programmers are _very_ defensive and arrogant, so it takes a lot to break down the resistance to new ideas). > > > > (PS: not sure about the vinegar bit, I never actually tried it. From > what I've seen on farms, you could probably catch even more flies if > you've got a cow in your apartment, but I can't think about a good open > source analogy involving cows, so I'll just leave it at that.) > Fair enough. I just thank God I have neither (a cow or an apartment). :)
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 24 Mar 2010 09:51
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:13:39 -0400, David Mark wrote: >... The OO documentation is truly lagging >behind at this point though. I'm working on that. Guess I'll wait for it. >In the meantime, see >the TaskSpeed tests. Comparing the various sets of test functions for >each library should be enlightening. Despite its many documented flaws, >the suite does at least allow you to compare techniques for common tasks >between the various libraries (hover over a result to see the function >that returned it). Actually I am not all that interested in the performance itself. I consider the most valuable side-effect of performance tests that the give an indication of the general quality of the software. >It is My Library (the "my" refers to you). Start with a minimal build >(optimally the features that interest you) and see the examples on the >builder test page. There is even a console to view the internal >machinations in real time. Then there is the Examples page, the >discussion forum and the (there is you look) documentation. Barring >that, you can ask me. It's worked for a lot of people so far. :) I don't work that way. I need definitions. I need to know in advance what exactly each function does. Examples are certainly very welcome too, but ultimately I need the definitions. I'll wait patiently. I believe there is a widespread need for a software layer between the programmer, particularly the average programmer, and the web browser, with several quirky browsers around. A few examples of functions that differ from browser to browser and that could do with some software layer help are Ajax functionality, positioning, innerHTML limitations, events, and several other functions that differ among DOM implementations. The almost too popular CSS selectors may also be a good thing. The more experienced professionals will probably not overuse them anyway. Hans-Georg |