to learn jQuery if already using prototype
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 20 Apr 2008 16:44 beegee wrote: > On Apr 16, 12:44 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: >> beegee wrote: >> For that matter, at least JavaScript[tm] *is* a compiled language like >> Java. Don't confuse prompt execution with no-compilation. > > Uh, no. Do you understand what compilation is? Yes, do you? > I mean, there are javascript compilers but as far as I've heard, none in > a browser yet. There are JIT-compilers. >> > I think you miss the point. YUI is *supposedly* only "more like >> > 'Javascript'" (whatever that might be) than Prototype or jQuery in the sense >> > that its developers *supposedly* knew enough about the programming languages >> > to unleash their full potential without having to resort to inefficient and >> > error-prone detours of inventing "classes" and "initializers" where there >> > are already prototypes and constructors. > > You certainly do like to argue, don't you. It takes quite a talent to > obfuscate agreement to point of it sounding like disagreement. We don't have an agreement here. PointedEars -- Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.) -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 20 Apr 2008 16:47 Gregor Kofler wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte: >> Unfortunately, your "this speaks for itself" statement is too ambiguous >> to stand as an argument by itself. What exactly are you trying to say here? > > [...] I expect that somebody claiming to be an "evangelist", "guru" or > "ninja" advertising the usefulness of "with", comes up with a more > substantial response than ...this. [...] I see, and I agree with you here. Thanks for your explanation. PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk>
From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen on 20 Apr 2008 16:52 Andrew Dupont <google(a)andrewdupont.net> writes: > If these libraries have won legitimacy on the mainstream > Web, then the opinion that they are shoddy is held by a minority, and > they obviously need to do more persuading. There is no contradiction between the two opinions. Something can easily win ligitimacy and still be shoddy. In this particular case, I believe libraries like Prototype and JQuery to be distruptive technologies (q.v.). I.e., they *are* qualitatively inferior to doing things the hard (old) way. However, they work /adequately/ for many things, and they allow people with less skill than would otherwise be necessary to create pages that serve their needs. I.e., they are /enabling/ without being perfect. People here will keep complaining about the shoddy quality of libraries while that quality, slowly, increases. This goes on until the time when libraries have won, and anybody not using them is putting themselves at a disadvantage. /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: Richard Cornford on 20 Apr 2008 17:46 Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: > Andrew Dupont writes: > >> If these libraries have won legitimacy on the mainstream >> Web, then the opinion that they are shoddy is held by a minority, >> and they obviously need to do more persuading. > > There is no contradiction between the two opinions. Something can > easily win ligitimacy and still be shoddy. <snip> And then there is the question of what constitutes "legitimacy" in the first place. Were the copy-and-paste code collections of the last decade illegitimate? Or endemic bad practices such as eval-ing runtime constructed property accessor strings? Some would answered with a resounding 'yes', while the people using them would probably have disagreed. > People here will keep complaining about the shoddy quality of > libraries while that quality, slowly, increases. If complaining was the only thing that went on here then that would end up being futile and pointless. But over the years the discussions of the many inherent problems with general purpose libraries had resulted in some useful ideas about how to set about creating a code-base that could offer high levels of code re-use, and a relatively low entry level, while mitigating the problems inherent in the current approaches. As to "slowly, increasing"; that is happening, at minimum because the authors of those libraries cannot avoid becoming better informed about how javascript works at time goes on. The really very obviously bad aspects of their original cod do eventually get weeded out. But there is a limit to how far that can go because while these things have 'users' who expect ongoing support, bug fixes and updates for new browsers there is never a possibility of going back and re-visiting the fundamental design of the library's API. And if the original design was done at a time when the original authors were writing code that was amenable to improvements in its internal quality the odd are extremely good that those shortcomings also manifested themselves in the API design itself. So Prototype.js and QUery authors are struggling to mitigate the poor performance that their code exhibits, and realistically can probably nearly double its actual performance, but that is it. Aspects of the original library design place a fixed cap on what can be achieved even if all of the internal details were rendered optimal. > This goes on until the time when libraries have won, and > anybody not using them is putting themselves at a > disadvantage. There is no disadvantage from understanding javascript. In the event that I was put in a position of being forced to use any of these 'popular' libraries the ability to understand how they work internally would be a huge advantage in actually using them. Though that is extremely unlikely to happen where I work now because none of the existing popular libraries perform anywhere near fast enough for the web applications I work on, and they never could. Richard.
From: kangax on 20 Apr 2008 23:47
On Apr 20, 5:46 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote: > There is no disadvantage from understanding javascript. In the event > that I was put in a position of being forced to use any of these > 'popular' libraries the ability to understand how they work internally > would be a huge advantage in actually using them. Though that is > extremely unlikely to happen where I work now because 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? Thanks, kangax |