to learn jQuery if already using prototype
in [JavaScript]
|
From: RobG on 17 Apr 2008 19:03 On Apr 18, 7:57 am, Gregor Kofler <use...(a)gregorkofler.at> wrote: > humeniuc meinte: > > > I agree with you. I exagerated a little here, but i was a little > > iritated about Tomas atitude and his acid posts, not only in this > > topic. > > I reached his site, I see that he is a good programmer, but his > > atitude .... > > > about jQuery quality, can't make a statement, I have coleagues who use > > it and are happy with it. > > I prefer Prototype. I don't know what programing rules broke Prototype > > developers (if you have some links, discutions, please share), but > > works for me. > > Perhaps this one: > <http://groups.google.at/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/...> Or this one: <URL: http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/181f03af63cc81c2/e88d79970736fe36?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=+Why+should+I+eschew+prototype.js#e88d79970736fe36 > A salient quote from one of Richard Cornford's posts in that thread: "The Prototype.js approach results in code that cannot be expected to work in any more browsers than those in which it has been demonstrated to 'work', and so cannot even be expected to 'work' with the future versions of ... those browsers. This cannot be a viable approach to creating cross-browser code, and it does not." -- Rob
From: VK on 18 Apr 2008 00:36 On Apr 18, 3:03 am, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > A salient quote from one of Richard Cornford's posts in that thread: > > "The Prototype.js approach results in code that cannot be > expected to work in any more browsers than those in which > it has been demonstrated to 'work', and so cannot even be > expected to 'work' with the future versions of ... those > browsers. This cannot be a viable approach to creating > cross-browser code, and it does not." The Richard Cornford's point of view was well expressed in this NG many times. In his universe a program for MS-DOS has to seamlessly migrate on 16bit GUI of any kind (not Windows only), then equally seamlessly migrate to 32bit and 64bit GUI. Respectively when programming in say MS-DOS the programmer has to foresee the whole future line of OS development 10-20 years in advance. Any message of the kind "This program requires ... to run" is a sign of a very bad programming. I do respect personal philosophical schemes including idealistic romanticism as well. Yet claiming it as a world-wide the only correct programming pattern is Richard Cornford's personal choice other have rights do no agree with.
From: humeniuc on 18 Apr 2008 02:30 > Perhaps this one: > <http://groups.google.at/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/...> > > Or this one: > > <URL:http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thr... Thanks, Gregor and RobG
From: Richard Cornford on 18 Apr 2008 02:40 liketofindoutwhy wrote: > On Apr 15, 4:47 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> liketofindoutwhy 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? In the end it would be more productive to learn javascript and browser scripting, and then you make your own mind up. >>> [...] >> >> Prototype.js, and consequently everything based upon it, like >> Script.aculo.us, is junk. The jQuery junk support forums are >> elsewhere, too. > > So you mean Prototype and jQuery are both junk? I didn't think that statement was ambiguous in any way. > Can you give some points as to why you think so? That is probably going to come down to understanding. > For example, how else would you pass a > call back function binding to the current scope, Do you know what that means? It reads like the usual parroting of the (lamentably) common misconception(or mislabelling) that scope is in some way related to the value of the - this - keyword in javascript. While in javascript scope is lexical and so (mostly) determined by the (structure of the) source code and the - this - value is determined by how functions/methods are call, and determined at runtime. > such as processData.bind(this) ? So it is the - this - value that concerns you, not scope at all. But what sort of question are you asking? Javascript programmers know what the - this - keyword will refer to at any point, and how to arrange that the - this - keyword refers to specific objects when it is necessary. You are not programming until you are in control of that sort of thing. As both of Prototype.js and JQuery are written in javascript it must be possible to write javascript code that does anything and everything that either are capable of. > I kind of like the arr.each(function(x) > { ... }) But is "like" enough of a reason? I have seen some horrendously inefficient uses of function expressions in - each - and - forEach - methods (including inside the JQuery source code). They seem to encourage it, at lest where the author had not understood the implications of what they are doing. > or the arr.sort().uniq().join(" ") syntax. That style of method chaining has been dogging javascript for years. It is occasionally useful, but it does result in some very obscure source code, which probably explains why I can think of no regular contributors to this group who choose that style of coding. And one of the consequences of the inherent obscurity of that style of code is demonstrated in your example. It looks to me like the intention of - uniq - would be to remove repetitious values from the array (assuming the subject is an array) and it is unlikely that that method has been written such that it benefits in any way from the array being pre-sorted, but the sort method will almost certainly be more efficient if any elements that are to be removed from the array are removed before sorting. Of course seeing and understanding the source code for those methods would answer the question one way or the other. But 'liking' superficial syntax and convenience methods are nowhere near enough to mitigate for the observation (from the source code) that the authors of those two libraries did not (and seemingly still do not) understand javascript as a language or its application in browser scripting. Richard.
From: RobG on 18 Apr 2008 08:05
On Apr 18, 2:36 pm, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 3:03 am, RobG <rg...(a)iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > A salient quote from one of Richard Cornford's posts in that thread: > > > "The Prototype.js approach results in code that cannot be > > expected to work in any more browsers than those in which > > it has been demonstrated to 'work', and so cannot even be > > expected to 'work' with the future versions of ... those > > browsers. This cannot be a viable approach to creating > > cross-browser code, and it does not." > > The Richard Cornford's point of view was well expressed in this NG > many times. In his universe [... snip ...] The snipped part your post utterly misrepresents Richard's often expressed opinion. The funny thing is that only those familiar with your posting style will have any idea what you were trying to say - and they know enough about what you post to ignore it. -- Rob |