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: Stefan Weiss on 15 Jul 2010 08:43 On 15/07/10 08:34, David Mark wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:57 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "S.T." wrote: >> > [in response to Matt Kruse] >> > You are in a small subset of developers that use jQuery by choice, yet >> > are also highly critical of it. In fact you might be the only person >> > I've read that shares those characteristics. Not that there's anything >> > wrong with that, just a somewhat unique view. >> >> You can put me in that category as well. And me, as of 1-2 months ago. I hadn't used jQuery before, but this time, it made sense (see below). >> I find that JQuery often >> simplifies my development, but I recognize many flaws in it and would >> love to see something more solid come along to take it's place. > > It only allow creates the illusion of simplifying your development. No, it really did simplify the development, and it saved me a day of work. Here's the case story: a relatively simple website which didn't use a lot of JavaScript at all. I was hired to write the server-side framework (user management, dynamic content, CMS) and some HTML templates. Unfortunately, the customer turned out to be very demanding, and their change requests were managed badly, so that the project was already *way* behind schedule. I was only a subcontractor with a fixed fee, and had badly misjudged the amount of work for this project. Any more time spent on it would have cost me even more money. Then it turned out that the customer wanted Lightbox on every page (this was also included in the demo version, but I had forgotten about it). There's no way I'm going to include Prototype.js in any of my projects, so I went looking for an alternative. Believe it or not, the first place I went was your site, to check if your library had a plugin for this, but it didn't. So I was faced with the choice of developing it myself (including all the flashy animations and fade effects the customer expected), or using one of the myriad Lightbox clones out there. The best clone I found was a jQuery plugin. I gave it a shot and it worked very well. It may have all the drawbacks that jQuery brings with it, but in this case, I didn't care anymore. They wanted Lightbox, I gave them Slimbox2, and didn't look back. I'm not a fan of jQuery by any means, and I know its weak points well enough. In this case, however, it did save me a lot of work. So there. I'm now officially among the fallen ones. -- stefan
From: Richard Cornford on 15 Jul 2010 09:23 On Jul 15, 1:43 pm, Stefan Weiss wrote: > On 15/07/10 08:34, David Mark wrote: >> On Jun 18, 10:57 pm, Scott Sauyet wrote: <snip> >>> I find that JQuery often >>> simplifies my development, but I recognize many flaws in it and >>> would love to see something more solid come along to take it's >>> place. > >> It only allow creates the illusion of simplifying your development. > > No, it really did simplify the development, and it saved me a day > of work. Here's the case story: a relatively simple website which > didn't use a lot of JavaScript ... Lightbox clones out there. > The best clone I found was a jQuery plugin. I gave it a shot and > it worked very well. It may have all the drawbacks that jQuery > brings with it, but in this case, I didn't care anymore. They > wanted Lightbox, I gave them Slimbox2, and didn't look back. > > I'm not a fan of jQuery by any means, and I know its weak points > well enough. In this case, however, it did save me a lot of work. <snip> Doesn't that story boil down to 'JQuery allowed me to take the money and run'? Richard.
From: Matt Kruse on 15 Jul 2010 09:31 On Jul 15, 8:23 am, Richard Cornford <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Doesn't that story boil down to 'JQuery allowed me to take the money > and run'? You seem to imply that that is a bad thing :) Matt Kruse
From: Stefan Weiss on 15 Jul 2010 10:17 On 15/07/10 15:23, Richard Cornford wrote: > On Jul 15, 1:43 pm, Stefan Weiss wrote: >> No, it really did simplify the development, and it saved me a day >> of work. Here's the case story: a relatively simple website which >> didn't use a lot of JavaScript ... Lightbox clones out there. >> The best clone I found was a jQuery plugin. I gave it a shot and >> it worked very well. It may have all the drawbacks that jQuery >> brings with it, but in this case, I didn't care anymore. They >> wanted Lightbox, I gave them Slimbox2, and didn't look back. >> >> I'm not a fan of jQuery by any means, and I know its weak points >> well enough. In this case, however, it did save me a lot of work. > <snip> > > Doesn't that story boil down to 'JQuery allowed me to take the money > and run'? I suppose you could see it that way, if you assume the jQuery + Slimbox combination is going to cause trouble in the future, but Prototype.js + script.aculo.us + Lightbox (the customer's original request) would be stable. From my point of view, this replacement was already a (minor) improvement I was not obligated to do. In other circumstances, I would probably have bitten the bullet and created a Lightbox replacement myself. In this particular case, they'd already got 4 times the work they should have for my fixed fee (which they still haven't paid, by the way). As a result, leaving them with jQuery doesn't pose a big moral problem for me. You can't expect me to add an additional day of work in this environment, just to save them the trouble of uploading a new jQuery version every couple of years. I did hesitate, and I did look for alternatives for over an hour. The next time I have to make this decision, hopefully with a fairer contract, I might go ahead and create a stand-alone Lightbox clone. The ones I've seen were much, much worse than the jQuery one. One more thing. I am a JS developer (among other things), and I am able to create these things if I want to. Other people, including many web designers and amateur bloggers, webmasters, etc, don't have that experience. They can either use the best existing script they can find, or do without the functionality of Lightbox & co. I have no problem whatsoever when these people are using jQuery and its plugins. It enables them to do things they otherwise couldn't. The moral dilemma I was facing does not apply to them. -- stefan
From: Thomas Allen on 15 Jul 2010 10:31
I see really no discussion of the (de)merits of MooTools in this topic, a library that I have found to be very useful over the years. I see attribute getter/setter methods consistently criticized, and for good reason in that they typically offer little. I think that MooTools' implementation of "get" and "set" for Element is otherwise in that it is intended to allow for an intermediary layer of element data "storage," although in my own code that use case is infrequent. Thomas |