to learn jQuery if already using prototype
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Richard Cornford on 22 Apr 2008 20:40 kangax wrote: > On Apr 20, 5:46 pm, Richard Cornford wrote: <snip> >> ... none of the existing popular libraries perform anywhere >> near fast enough for the web applications I work on, and >> they never could. > > Is it possible to see the above mentioned web applications? An invisible web application would not be very easy to use (or sell). But you mean is it possible for you to see them. If you can convince our marketing department that you are a potential customer they will happily demonstrate it to you (in your own offices, anywhere on the planet, and at your convenience). Their question will be "how much property do you own/manage?", but if the answers is much less than 1000 building they are probably not going to be interested. Richard.
From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen on 23 Apr 2008 03:06 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes: > Matt Kruse wrote: >> The terms "compiled" and "interpreted" to refer to programming languages >> are both vague and don't have exact meanings to begin with. They are just >> labels. > > This is simply wrong. No, it's not. > RTFM. Link? Compiling and interpreting are processes. Applying the names to langauges as a whole suggests (but is not formally defined) that the language is inherently using that process. That is not how most langauges are specified. Instead they are specified at the semantic level, allowing both interpretation and compilation. If instead we look at the, formal, definitions of an Interpreter and a Compiler, then it becomes clearer how to, at least, distinguish the processes. An interpreter is defined by *two* things: The interpreted (source) language, and the implementation language. In order to use it, you run the implementation language and give the source language program as input. The application of the interpreter to the program, Interpreter(source), must have the same semantics in the implementation language, as the souce program has in the interpreted language. A compiler is defined by *three* things: The source language, the target language, and the implementation language. You run the implementation language with the source program as input and receive a program in the target language as output. The target progrem must have the same semantics in the target language as the source program has in the source language. The typical meaning of a "compiled language" is one where the source program is compiled to another form once and then that form is stored and run several times. I.e., where the process of compilation is separate from the process of interpreting the compiled form. >> Especially when the terms do not have "scientific" meanings and are open >> to interpretation. > > No, see above. But what matters here (if it matters at all; to remind you, > the cause of this subthread was a website that compared Prototype.js to Java > and jQuery to Ruby) is that JavaScript and JScript code is compiled *first*. The combination of first compiling and then executing implements an interpreter. Nothing prevents an interpreter from using a compiler as a component, but its behavior is still clearly that of an interpreter: it executes the program. That means that Javascript used on the web is always interpreted. > This does not apply to all languages that are finally interpreted. > > What the both of you seem to overlook is that compilation and interpretation > can complement each other. Absolutely. But if "compiled language" and "interpreted language" is to have any meaning (which I doubt it has), the most significant process should be the deciding factor, and Javascript is typically interpreted, whether that interpreter contains an internal compiler or not. I know there are exceptions where Javasscript is compiled offline and transmitted in compiled form, but that only strengthens the point that "compiled language" and "interpreted language" are meaningless. /L -- Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn(a)hotpop.com DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html> 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
From: Thadeu de Paula on 23 Apr 2008 08:04 On Apr 15, 10:04 am, liketofindoutwhy <liketofindout...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am learning more and more Prototype and Script.aculo.us and got the > Bungee book... and wonder if I should get some books on jQuery (jQuery > in Action, and Learning jQuery) and start learning about it too? > > Once I saw a website comparing Prototype to Java and jQuery to Ruby... > but now that I read more and more about Prototype, it is said that > Prototype actually came from Ruby on Rails development and the creator > of Prototype created it with making Prototype work like Ruby in mind. > Is jQuery also like Ruby? Thanks so much for your help. They are not bad... if you don't want to use javascript. The better is you learn JS. Then, seeing it's code you'll know what it do. But imagine... Using Prototype, jQuery etc.. you'll need to load these scripts in all your pages... using all functions or not. They create variables to store long built-in JS properties. This is unnecessary. The better is you code your object and functions and load only necessary to do especific things. And... about code... if you use many document.objasdjhk() and wanto to keep the code smaller... compress it with an javascript compressor and keep the original code to edition. Prototype, jQuery are "good" works from people that knows JS. But it can not be the best way of implement JS in your pages.
From: beegee on 23 Apr 2008 10:18 On Apr 23, 3:06 am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <l...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: <snip> > The combination of first compiling and then executing implements an > interpreter. Nothing prevents an interpreter from using a compiler as > a component, but its behavior is still clearly that of an interpreter: > it executes the program. > Yes, that is a very clear definition. Now, what is the difference between an interpreter and a virtual machine? PointedEars suggests they are the same thing. Certainly both execute a program and both use a compiler as a component. Instinctively, I know there is a difference between languages such as Javascript, Ruby on one hand and Java,.NET C# on the other. There is a trade off of speed for expression that I at first attributed to compilation vs. interpretation. Recently, I've noticed that C# has added lambdas and a variant (typeless) type to the latest version. The syntax is kind of a nightmare compared to Javascript but it means that VM is doing the same kind of "interpretation" that the Javascript interpreter is doing. So maybe the difference between these languages is that one type is oriented toward compilation and the other is oriented toward interpretation even though they have evolved towards each other. Bob
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 23 Apr 2008 13:34
beegee wrote: > Now, what is the difference between an interpreter and a virtual machine? > PointedEars suggests they are the same thing. Certainly both execute a > program and both use a compiler as a component. Not necessarily. > Instinctively, I know there is a difference between languages such as > Javascript, Ruby on one hand and Java,.NET C# on the other. So at least partially you would be let down by your instincts. At least as for JavaScript, JScript, JScript .NET, and Java, there is no difference regarding this as should have been clear to you by now. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann |