jquery vs dojo vs yui etc

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Joe Nine, Jun 16, 2010.

  1. Joe Nine

    Joe Nine Guest

    Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    someone suggests we use one of them.
    Joe Nine, Jun 16, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe Nine

    Matt Kruse Guest

    On Jun 16, 1:34 pm, Joe Nine <> wrote:
    > Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > state the major flaws of these libraries?


    A post like this in here is like throwing row meat into a tank of
    piranhas.

    Enjoy!

    Matt Kruse
    Matt Kruse, Jun 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 6/16/2010 11:34 AM, Joe Nine wrote:
    > Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    > of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    > few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    > someone suggests we use one of them.


    Maybe next week.
    Garrett Smith, Jun 16, 2010
    #3
  4. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine <> wrote:
    > Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    > of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    > few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    > someone suggests we use one of them.


    I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    Search the archive.

    In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

    Reading the exchanges in their respective developer forums (or on
    sites like Hacker News and Stack Overflow) is quite enlightening as
    well. Seeing the "experts" (your prospective support staff) in action
    should be an eye-opening experience.

    In many cases, you shouldn't need to know the technical ins and outs
    of what they are discussing. Just look at the quality of the
    discourse (try this, try that, show me where it fails, etc.) Look at
    how many questions go unresolved. Look how testy they get when told
    they are wrong. Look at the aliases. Look at the (deliberately)
    goofy pictures. Would you accept advice of any kind (let alone
    technical guidance) from these people?
    David Mark, Jun 16, 2010
    #4
  5. On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:
    > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    >> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    >> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    >> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >
    > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    > Search the archive.
    >
    > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.
    >


    Pure opinion. Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
    The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
    plain terrible. Easy, right?

    A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
    would be valuable.

    The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
    that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
    provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.

    The summary should be something that can be explained simply and should
    be understandable by anyone. The exposition should elaborate on that.

    For example:

    Summary of library X:
    * String methods slow
    * method M doesn't work consistently in browsers
    * silly and useless methods

    [elaboration of each point, with examples]

    [reasons the bugs can't be simply patched/design analysis]

    [alternative]

    [Conclusion recapping on problems an alternative.]

    A couple of years back I did areview on Prototype.js:
    http://dhtmlkitchen.com/?category=/JavaScript/&date=2008/06/17/&entry=Prototype-js-A-Review

    In that review, I painfully showed how the library works. Something as
    complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
    appreciated.

    Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.

    I would like to see such articles. I would, but I am busy with JSON
    stuff and writing a test runner. I will be publishing an article next
    week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
    another article.

    Dojo is nearly dead, so that one is low hanging fruit. jQuery and YUI
    might be good subject matter for changing the industry.

    As a final emphasis, the article should emphasize what to do instead.
    That is: How to analyze code quality and where to learn about web
    scripting. The article should not simply turn the reader away from a one
    library, only to leave him directionless or jumping to another library
    (as many ex-prototype.js users switched to jQuery).

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 16, 2010
    #5
  6. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<>  wrote:
    > >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    > >> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    > >> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    > >> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >
    > > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    > > Search the archive.

    >
    > > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    > > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

    >
    > Pure opinion.


    Amnesia flaring up again? :)

    There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    (as you well know). As I said, search the archive.

    > Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
    > The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
    > plain terrible. Easy, right?


    I've done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some
    of it recently.

    >
    > A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
    > would be valuable.


    It's been done to death (as you well know).

    >
    > The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
    > that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
    > provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.


    That ship has sailed and long since reached its destination.

    [...]

    >
    > A couple of years back I did areview on Prototype.js:http://dhtmlkitchen.com/?category=/JavaScript/&date=2008/06/17/&entry...


    I thought that was where this was headed. Well, good for you then.
    But drop the laughable, indefensible stance against what I've done
    (which towers over your "achievements" in this area).

    >
    > In that review, I painfully showed how the library works.


    Sorry to hear it was painful.

    > Something as
    > complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
    > appreciated.


    Yes. Again, done to death at this point. I mean, Prototype?! Could
    there be a less relevant example at this juncture?

    >
    > Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.


    Exactly.

    >
    > I would like to see such articles.


    All together: Search the archive.

    > I would, but I am busy with JSON
    > stuff and writing a test runner.


    Great.

    > I will be publishing an article next
    > week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
    > another article.


    Okay. I think you are way late on that one as well.

    >
    > Dojo is nearly dead, so that one is low hanging fruit.


    Yes, I'd like to think I helped kill it. :)

    > jQuery and YUI
    > might be good subject matter for changing the industry.


    You can't stand it, can you? I've already changed the industry.
    Where were you?

    >
    > As a final emphasis, the article should emphasize what to do instead.


    We've been over that ad nauseam as well.

    > That is: How to analyze code quality and where to learn about web
    > scripting.
    > The article should not simply turn the reader away from a one
    > library, only to leave him directionless or jumping to another library
    > (as many ex-prototype.js users switched to jQuery).
    >


    Your hypothetical article pales in comparison to my somewhat legendary
    output in this area. Best of luck with it!
    David Mark, Jun 17, 2010
    #6
  7. Joe Nine

    RobG Guest

    On Jun 17, 8:53 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    > >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    > >> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    > >> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    > >> someone suggests we use one of them.

    [...]
    > The summary should be something that can be explained simply and should
    > be understandable by anyone. The exposition should elaborate on that.
    >
    > For example:
    >
    > Summary of library X:
    > * String methods slow
    > * method M doesn't work consistently in browsers
    > * silly and useless methods
    >
    > [elaboration of each point, with examples]
    >
    > [reasons the bugs can't be simply patched/design analysis]
    >
    > [alternative]
    >
    > [Conclusion recapping on problems an alternative.]


    A discussion of the library architecture and usage patterns with their
    pros and cons would also be helpful.


    > A couple of years back I did areview on Prototype.js:http://dhtmlkitchen.com/?category=/JavaScript/&date=2008/06/17/&entry...
    >
    > In that review, I painfully showed how the library works. Something as
    > complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
    > appreciated.


    I'm sure it took quite a bit of time, it would be good to update it.
    There does not seem to be mention of the version reviewed (June 2008
    => v 1.6.0.2?).

    The section $a toString gave me a bit of a revelation: browser
    detection based on the rendering engine ignores differences in the
    script engine. There are a number of browser families based on WebKit,
    there are two main script engines - Chrome, Maxthon and Android use V8
    whereas KDE and Safari use SquirrelFish. There may be others.


    > Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.


    Would somebody please tell Apple that? Their main web site uses
    version 1.6.0.2


    [...]
    > Dojo is nearly dead, so that one is low hanging fruit. jQuery and YUI
    > might be good subject matter for changing the industry.


    It should also look at massive frameworks like Qooxdoo, Cappuccino
    ("...an open source framework that makes it easy to build desktop-
    caliber applications that run in a web browser"[1]) and SproutCore
    ("... an HTML5 application framework for building responsive, desktop-
    caliber apps in any modern web browser..."[2]).

    1. <URL: http://cappuccino.org/ >
    2. <URL: http://www.sproutcore.com/what-is-sproutcore/ >


    > As a final emphasis, the article should emphasize what to do instead.


    Yes, such as: let the browser do as much work natively as possible,
    keep it simple and use scripting only where necessary to add value
    (i.e. the antithesis of Qooxdoo, Cappuccino and SproutCore which aim
    to completely replace the browser's UI).


    --
    Rob
    RobG, Jun 17, 2010
    #7
  8. David Mark wrote:

    > Garrett Smith wrote:
    >> David Mark wrote:
    >> > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >> >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >> >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using
    >> >> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just
    >> >> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire
    >> >> back when someone suggests we use one of them.
    >> >
    >> > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    >> > Search the archive.
    >> >
    >> > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    >> > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

    >> Pure opinion.

    >
    > Amnesia flaring up again? :)
    >
    > There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    > (as you well know). As I said, search the archive.


    Search it yourself. I must agree that the problem with what is in "the
    archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless
    sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting
    (on your part, despite several requests to do better), if it is available
    at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?). It is
    unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been
    thrown. So much for amnesia.

    Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
    sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
    considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.
    Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
    approach to be done properly.


    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$1$>
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jun 17, 2010
    #8
  9. On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote:
    > On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    >>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    >>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    >>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >>


    Of course, so when somebody -- a recruiter, for example, says, "what's
    wrong with the jQuery library?", you can say:

    - Poor selector engine
    - Non-descriptive method names
    - Hard to debug
    - long, overloaded methods with too much abstraction
    - Poorly degradable
    - loosely defined constructs and vague documentation
    - Low-quality plugins
    - Silly (and futile) things in source, like `isPlainObject`
    - Significant and numerous core upgrades that break functionality
    - plugins don't work
    - documentation doesn't reflect new behavior

    (modified list of gripes from a colleague).

    >>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    >>> Search the archive.

    >>
    >>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    >>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

    >>
    >> Pure opinion.

    >
    > Amnesia flaring up again? :)
    >
    > There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    > (as you well know). As I said, search the archive.
    >


    The OP asked for "links to very convincing articles". In your response,
    I see cynical opinion and no links. That's not even a concise summary of
    any one library. It sounds snide, actually. And no urls.

    >> Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
    >> The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
    >> plain terrible. Easy, right?

    >
    > I've done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some
    > of it recently.
    >


    That is untrue.

    I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours.

    >>
    >> A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
    >> would be valuable.

    >
    > It's been done to death (as you well know).
    >


    URL?

    >>
    >> The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
    >> that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
    >> provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.

    >
    > That ship has sailed and long since reached its destination.
    >


    If you are trying to say that an article was published then post a URL
    so the OP can see it.

    [...]

    >> Something as
    >> complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
    >> appreciated.

    >
    > Yes. Again, done to death at this point. I mean, Prototype?! Could
    > there be a less relevant example at this juncture?
    >


    One point to be gleaned from that is what sort of change it can affect.
    A subtler point is that the mistake I made was not emphasizing enough
    about what to do instead. Look how many switched to jQuery.

    The review also shows an example outline of how to do a review. It
    starts at a very high level with technical *facts*.

    | A code review should be objective and should state actual problems.
    | Saying "the code is bad" is not a helpful review. Instead, explain
    | the problem clearly. If the problem is severe, then say why.

    <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/review/>

    I've emphasized these points many times regarding your reviews and I've
    noticed improvement, but I think it can still get better.

    People will respect you if you follow that.

    >>
    >> Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.

    >
    > Exactly.
    >


    And even a Prototype core developer criticizing Prototype:
    http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/

    Now more and more are flocking to jQuery. Great. Well, not really.

    [...]

    >
    >> I will be publishing an article next
    >> week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
    >> another article.

    >
    > Okay. I think you are way late on that one as well.
    >


    Opinions are funny things. Everybody's got one.

    My observations are that many developers are unaware of how selectors work.

    I've notice that some foster beliefs that the jQuery "bare words"
    proprietary selector syntax is designed to work match attributes instead
    of properties. In contrast, the source code of jQuery indicates that it
    was designed to select properties.

    Further evidence indicates that there may be uncertainty as to whether
    or not the jQuery author(s) know what it was designed to do or knew that
    it was invalid CSS selector syntax. The documentation says it selects
    attributes, the website says it is css3 compliant. Blog entries seem to
    be vague and contradictory.

    My observation is that developers are confused as to how selectors
    really work.

    >
    > Your hypothetical article pales in comparison to my somewhat legendary
    > output in this area. Best of luck with it!


    Then post a link to what you feel are your best ones. Let them speak for
    themselves and quit boasting about them.

    Look:
    <http://www.google.com/search?q=jquery+%22code+review%22>

    I don't see any jQuery code reviews. Chances are, the OP doesn't either.

    I've found:
    http://www.doxdesk.com/#u20091116-jquery

    - which is funny, but not a serious code review (the author is
    knowledgeable and provides humorous insight. He seems to not take jQuery
    seriously).

    My opinion is that jQuery is taken seriously by so many that it cannot
    be just laughed off and it cannot be just called garbage. In order to
    effect a change, one must take it head on in a more formal code review.

    Talk to the reader as if he's right in front of you; don't insult his
    intelligence and don't assume he understands everything you do. Be
    concise. Make it understandable at a high level to anyone. Try to see it
    from the perspective of the user who llikes it. Try to see it from the
    perspective of the author who wrote it and is now stuck with design
    decisions -- what can he do? Are they fixable? If so, how? If not, why
    not? Parsing selectors - sounds neat, right? Well, the problems with
    that are...

    [brief introduction]

    [summary overview of problems]

    [exposition and demonstration of each problem]

    [elaboration on design issues]

    [alternative]

    [conclusion]

    Writing something like that is not going to be easy; not something that
    can be completed in under a week.

    A link to such formal review of jQuery would be useful and valuable.

    My prototypejs review was painful, not because I had to go and find
    problems, but because I had to communicate them effectively to readers
    who liked Prototype.js.

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 17, 2010
    #9
  10. On 6/16/2010 5:14 PM, RobG wrote:
    > On Jun 17, 8:53 am, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    >>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    >>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    >>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

    > [...]
    >> The summary should be something that can be explained simply and should
    >> be understandable by anyone. The exposition should elaborate on that.
    >>
    >> For example:
    >>
    >> Summary of library X:
    >> * String methods slow
    >> * method M doesn't work consistently in browsers
    >> * silly and useless methods
    >>
    >> [elaboration of each point, with examples]
    >>
    >> [reasons the bugs can't be simply patched/design analysis]
    >>
    >> [alternative]
    >>
    >> [Conclusion recapping on problems an alternative.]

    >
    > A discussion of the library architecture and usage patterns with their
    > pros and cons would also be helpful.
    >
    >



    [...]

    > Yes, such as: let the browser do as much work natively as possible,
    > keep it simple and use scripting only where necessary to add value
    > (i.e. the antithesis of Qooxdoo, Cappuccino and SproutCore which aim
    > to completely replace the browser's UI).


    Good advice.

    However, it touches on a core antipattern of Quooxdoo, Cappuccino and
    SproutCore. It's not a new technique.

    It would be good for the article to do one of
    1) focus entirely on one library
    2) focus or a problem that is solved and show how libraries solve it,
    with examples from the library, and then show an alternative.
    3) focus on an antipattern

    I'm going to publish an article next week, after it has been reviewed
    and edited (the draft is being reviewed now). The article will cover
    some things here, but it is not a formal review, as I have outlined. I'd
    really like to see that, and if it is a good one, probably even more
    than the article I'm working on.

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 17, 2010
    #10
  11. On 6/16/2010 5:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    >
    >> Garrett Smith wrote:
    >>> David Mark wrote:
    >>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using
    >>>>> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just
    >>>>> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire
    >>>>> back when someone suggests we use one of them.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    >>>> Search the archive.
    >>>>
    >>>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    >>>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.
    >>> Pure opinion.

    >>
    >> Amnesia flaring up again? :)
    >>
    >> There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    >> (as you well know). As I said, search the archive.

    >
    > Search it yourself. I must agree that the problem with what is in "the
    > archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless
    > sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting
    > (on your part, despite several requests to do better), if it is available
    > at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?). It is
    > unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been
    > thrown. So much for amnesia.
    >


    Most of the searching on google search (groups search is broken) results
    in developersdex and rinocerus and objectmix. Sometimes googlegroups
    local versions (korea, etc).

    > Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
    > sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
    > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.
    > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
    > approach to be done properly.
    >


    16 hours work, one hour per day; just have a quite writing time, two
    hours on the weekends. You'll be done in two weeks. Maybe you can
    recruit some editorial help from someone.

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 17, 2010
    #11
  12. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 8:25 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    > > Garrett Smith wrote:
    > >> David Mark wrote:
    > >> > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<>  wrote:
    > >> >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >> >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using
    > >> >> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just
    > >> >> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire
    > >> >> back when someone suggests we use one of them.

    >
    > >> > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so..
    > >> > Search the archive.

    >
    > >> > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    > >> > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.
    > >> Pure opinion.

    >
    > > Amnesia flaring up again?  :)

    >
    > > There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    > > (as you well know).  As I said, search the archive.

    >
    > Search it yourself.


    Why would I do that? After all, I've seen them.

    > I must agree that the problem with what is in "the
    > archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless
    > sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting
    > (on your part, despite several requests to do better),


    It's odd as you just recently opined that such sloppy formatting as is
    found in the reviewed code could hardly be pinned on me.

    > if it is available
    > at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?).


    As I'm sure you know, this group is echoed on numerous Websites other
    than GG. A normal Google search can be used when GG's search feature
    is going through one of its outages.

    > It is
    > unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been
    > thrown.  So much for amnesia.


    Utter nonsense. I've dissected jQuery so many times (here and
    elsewhere) that complaints often arise over the repetition.

    And the recent reviews of Dojo and Qooxdoo were as thorough as they
    needed to be. I don't recall you finding fault in them.

    >
    > Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
    > sound peer review.


    Of jQuery?!

    > In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
    > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.  


    So join Garrett on the list of people who haven't written reviews of
    jQuery or the rest.

    > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
    > approach to be done properly.
    >


    Whatever. Seems like a waste of time at this point (particularly for
    jQuery).
    David Mark, Jun 17, 2010
    #12
  13. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 8:43 pm, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<>  wrote:
    > >> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<>    wrote:
    > >>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    > >>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    > >>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    > >>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >
    > Of course, so when somebody -- a recruiter, for example, says, "what's
    > wrong with the jQuery library?", you can say:


    I don't often talk to recruiters and when I do, that question does not
    come up.

    >
    > - Poor selector engine


    How many times have we been over that?

    > - Non-descriptive method names


    And that.

    > - Hard to debug


    Another of my oft-repeated indictments, dating back almost three
    years.

    >    - long, overloaded methods with too much abstraction


    And another.

    > - Poorly degradable


    Still another.

    > - loosely defined constructs and vague documentation


    Yep.

    > - Low-quality plugins


    Everyone knows *that*.

    > - Silly (and futile) things in source, like `isPlainObject`


    LOL. It was isObjectLiteral until I took them to task on it in one of
    my many reviews. They changed it soon after (which, as you well know,
    is a pattern oft-repeated).

    > - Significant and numerous core upgrades that break functionality


    You sound like you are covering my greatest hits.

    >     - plugins don't work


    http://www.jibbering.com/faq/notes/posting/#ps1DontWork

    And you are repeating yourself as well.

    >     - documentation doesn't reflect new behavior


    Change "new behavior" to "reality" and you've copped another one from
    me.

    >
    > (modified list of gripes from a colleague).


    Oh brother. They must be an avid reader.

    >
    > >>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
    > >>> Search the archive.

    >
    > >>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    > >>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

    >
    > >> Pure opinion.

    >
    > > Amnesia flaring up again?  :)

    >
    > > There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    > > (as you well know).  As I said, search the archive.

    >
    > The OP asked for "links to very convincing articles".


    I can read, thanks.

    > In your response,
    > I see cynical opinion and no links.


    You are a repetitious clod, pure and simple.

    > That's not even a concise summary of
    > any one library.


    Of course not. What does "in short" and "search the archive" mean to
    you. Your feigning of amnesia (for the last three years) just makes
    you a laughingstock.

    > It sounds snide, actually. And no urls.


    No links? See above.

    >
    > >> Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
    > >> The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
    > >> plain terrible. Easy, right?

    >
    > > I've done all of the hard work.  You yourself were just parroting some
    > > of it recently.

    >
    > That is untrue.


    History says otherwise.

    >
    > I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours.


    Then I assume you've done so repeatedly at gunpoint.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
    > >> would be valuable.

    >
    > > It's been done to death (as you well know).

    >
    > URL?


    Groan. See above.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
    > >> that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
    > >> provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.

    >
    > > That ship has sailed and long since reached its destination.

    >
    > If you are trying to say that an article was published then post a URL
    > so the OP can see it.


    Do you read this stuff before posting?

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > >> Something as
    > >> complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
    > >> appreciated.

    >
    > > Yes.  Again, done to death at this point.  I mean, Prototype?!  Could
    > > there be a less relevant example at this juncture?

    >
    > One point to be gleaned from that is what sort of change it can affect.
    > A subtler point is that the mistake I made was not emphasizing enough
    > about what to do instead. Look how many switched to jQuery.


    Let's get real. Nobody has ever heard of you or your review of
    Prototype. Why don't you put your obvious frustration into something
    productive?

    >
    > The review also shows an example outline of how to do a review.


    It's all about you and some review nobody has read, isn't it?

    > It
    > starts at a very high level with technical *facts*.


    You really should read your stuff aloud before hitting the send
    button.

    >
    > | A code review should be objective and should state actual problems.
    > | Saying "the code is bad" is not a helpful review. Instead, explain
    > | the problem clearly. If the problem is severe, then say why.
    >
    > <http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/review/>
    >
    > I've emphasized these points many times regarding your reviews and I've
    > noticed improvement, but I think it can still get better.


    You assume I've paid the slightest attention to your advice.

    >
    > People will respect you if you follow that.


    Oh piss off. You respect me enough to imitate me years later. It's
    quite a compliment, even from a certified loon.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.

    >
    > > Exactly.

    >
    > And even a Prototype core developer criticizing Prototype:http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wrong-with-extending-the-dom/


    You don't see my influence there, do you? Who first pointed out the
    IE "unknown" type issue and repeated it endlessly until it seeped into
    the public conscience.

    >
    > Now more and more are flocking to jQuery.


    Who conducted that study?!

    > Great. Well, not really.


    Snide. :)

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    > >> I will be publishing an article next
    > >> week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
    > >> another article.

    >
    > > Okay.  I think you are way late on that one as well.

    >
    > Opinions are funny things. Everybody's got one.


    And everybody knows full well who spent years detailing the jQuery
    follies.

    >
    > My observations are that many developers are unaware of how selectors work.


    I'm sure many are. So what? Many developers can't tie their own
    shoes. How is that my fault? It's funny that the gripe used to be
    about *too many* jQuery indictments on my part.

    >
    > I've notice that some foster beliefs that the jQuery "bare words"
    > proprietary selector syntax is designed to work match attributes instead
    > of properties. In contrast, the source code of jQuery indicates that it
    > was designed to select properties.
    >
    > Further evidence indicates that there may be uncertainty as to whether
    > or not the jQuery author(s) know what it was designed to do or knew that
    > it was invalid CSS selector syntax.


    Long ago published by me. Years later, you want to chime in. What
    audience do you think you are playing to anyway? The vast majority of
    readers (excluding newcomers) have heard this stuff so many times they
    are sick of it (and have said so repeatedly).

    > The documentation says it selects
    > attributes, the website says it is css3 compliant.


    Could there be anything more ludicrous than you pointing out issues
    related to jQuery and attributes in June 2010. Go back to around
    Halloween 2007 and start reading my posts (particularly those threads
    where John Resig popped in to shoot himself in the foot).

    And the thing is you know all of this. Have you lost your mind
    recently or what?

    > Blog entries seem to
    > be vague and contradictory.


    What blog entries? Resig's? Yes, we've been over them ad nauseam
    too.

    >
    > My observation is that developers are confused as to how selectors
    > really work.


    You just said that. And I've been saying it for *years*. Published
    loads of proofs too. Are you really trying to wish all of that away
    now? That road's been plowed. Find another one.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Your hypothetical article pales in comparison to my somewhat legendary
    > > output in this area.  Best of luck with it!

    >
    > Then post a link to what you feel are your best ones.


    No. :)

    > Let them speak for
    > themselves and quit boasting about them.


    Why don't you quit pretending they don't exist? You'd really hit a
    new low here.

    >
    > Look:
    > <http://www.google.com/search?q=jquery+%22code+review%22>
    >
    > I don't see any jQuery code reviews.


    Perhaps you don't know how to use a search engine.

    > Chances are, the OP doesn't either.


    Perhaps he knows better.

    >
    > I've found:http://www.doxdesk.com/#u20091116-jquery
    >
    > - which is funny, but not a serious code review (the author is
    > knowledgeable and provides humorous insight. He seems to not take jQuery
    > seriously).


    Who would? It's long since been exposed as a joke. Largely by me.
    Get it? Resig sure as hell does. :)

    >
    > My opinion is that jQuery is taken seriously by so many that it cannot
    > be just laughed off and it cannot be just called garbage.


    What a ludicrous summary that is.

    > In order to
    > effect a change, one must take it head on in a more formal code review.


    Rubbish. The typical jQuery "programmer" will not be moved (and may
    not understand) technical reviews. Look at the avalanche of "retorts"
    from that camp related to my reviews. Most seemed to have missed the
    boat entirely. A few did take note of course (as you well know).

    >
    > Talk to the reader as if he's right in front of you; don't insult his
    > intelligence and don't assume he understands everything you do.


    I have no need to "talk" to anyone about jQuery at this time.

    > Be
    > concise. Make it understandable at a high level to anyone. Try to see it
    > from the perspective of the user who llikes it. Try to see it from the
    > perspective of the author who wrote it and is now stuck with design
    > decisions -- what can he do? Are they fixable? If so, how? If not, why
    > not? Parsing selectors - sounds neat, right? Well, the problems with
    > that are...


    ....well-documented. Largely by me. Where were you (and are you
    really posting any of this with a straight face?)

    >
    > [brief introduction]
    >
    > [summary overview of problems]
    >
    > [exposition and demonstration of each problem]
    >
    > [elaboration on design issues]
    >
    > [alternative]
    >
    > [conclusion]


    I've concluded you just like wasting my time. What do you get out of
    that?

    >
    > Writing something like that is not going to be easy; not something that
    > can be completed in under a week.


    Whatever.

    >
    > A link to such formal review of jQuery would be useful and valuable.


    To whom?

    >
    > My prototypejs review was painful, not because I had to go and find
    > problems, but because I had to communicate them effectively to readers
    > who liked Prototype.js.


    What difference did it make? I'll opine none.
    David Mark, Jun 17, 2010
    #13
  14. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 8:55 pm, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > On 6/16/2010 5:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > David Mark wrote:

    >
    > >> Garrett Smith wrote:
    > >>> David Mark wrote:
    > >>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<>   wrote:
    > >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using
    > >>>>> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just
    > >>>>> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire
    > >>>>> back when someone suggests we use one of them.

    >
    > >>>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so..
    > >>>> Search the archive.

    >
    > >>>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
    > >>>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.
    > >>> Pure opinion.

    >
    > >> Amnesia flaring up again?  :)

    >
    > >> There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
    > >> (as you well know).  As I said, search the archive.

    >
    > > Search it yourself.  I must agree that the problem with what is in "the
    > > archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless
    > > sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting
    > > (on your part, despite several requests to do better), if it is available
    > > at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?).  It is
    > > unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been
    > > thrown.  So much for amnesia.

    >
    > Most of the searching on google search (groups search is broken) results
    > in developersdex and rinocerus and objectmix.


    And presumably such reprints are unreadable for some reason?

    > Sometimes googlegroups
    > local versions (korea, etc).


    So skip those that aren't in your native language.

    >
    > > Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
    > > sound peer review.  In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
    > > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.
    > > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
    > > approach to be done properly.

    >
    > 16 hours work, one hour per day; just have a quite writing time, two
    > hours on the weekends.


    Where do you come up with this stuff?

    > You'll be done in two weeks.


    Then you'll only be two and half years plus two weeks too late to be
    relevant.

    > Maybe you can
    > recruit some editorial help from someone.
    >


    Maybe. Speaking of hours, I want the last hour or so of my life
    back. You'll truly outdone yourself this time.
    David Mark, Jun 17, 2010
    #14
  15. Joe Nine

    Scott Sauyet Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >>>> Joe Nine wrote:
    >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? [ ... ]

    > I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
    > sound peer review.  In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
    > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.  
    > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
    > approach to be done properly.


    As I'm sure is clear to regulars in this group, I am not entirely in
    agreement with the most commonly expressed opinion here that these
    general purpose libraries are worthless. I have not actively defended
    them much, but I personally find some value in them.

    Yet I would also welcome such critiques. I think they could do no
    worse than make more public the flaws that we all know exist in these
    libraries. They might help improve the libraries or bring forth
    better ones.

    But, as Garrett said, such critiques would have to be thorough,
    detailed, technically savvy but still reader-friendly. Such prose is
    not particularly easy to write. I think I can write reasonably well,
    and will volunteer to help put such critiques into a clear form if
    there is someone who wants to supply the analysis. (And no, David, I
    don't want to search the archives to piece it together!)

    I would suggest that if people take this up, that it's done one
    library at a time. A later collection can discuss them _en masse_ if
    desired, but the detailed explanation of the individual libraries
    should come first.

    Garrett's outline above is a decent start, although I would prefer a
    critique that at least starts at a higher level than his Prototype
    essay. One about jQuery might start for instance discussing
    objections to some of the features that the jQuery community actively
    promotes, starting with the "find something, do something" mantra
    (questions about inefficiencies, about proliferation of event
    handlers, about whether CSS queries are ever the right way to choose
    elements, etc.) and perhaps hitting on chaining and the multiple
    meanings of the "$" function. But eventually the sorts of details
    Garrett exposes for Prototype would be included too.

    Although these are critiques, they should be expository writing and
    not attempt to persuade users against those particular libraries. The
    attitude should be one of, "If you're going to consider this library
    you might want to know about these problems," and not, "You should not
    bother with this library."

    As I said, I'm more than willing to help, although I won't take this
    on entirely myself.

    --
    Scott
    Scott Sauyet, Jun 17, 2010
    #15
  16. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 9:56 pm, Scott Sauyet <> wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > >>>> Joe Nine wrote:
    > >>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? [ ... ]

    > > I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
    > > sound peer review.  In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
    > > considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.  
    > > Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
    > > approach to be done properly.

    >
    > As I'm sure is clear to regulars in this group, I am not entirely in
    > agreement with the most commonly expressed opinion here that these
    > general purpose libraries are worthless.  I have not actively defended
    > them much, but I personally find some value in them.
    >
    > Yet I would also welcome such critiques.  I think they could do no
    > worse than make more public the flaws that we all know exist in these
    > libraries.


    More public? Those who have the capacity to understand the problems
    in jQuery should be well aware of them by now.

    > They might help improve the libraries or bring forth
    > better ones.


    They already have brought forth better ones. As for improvement,
    there is a slight flaw in your plan. The authors of - for example -
    jQuery and Dojo have been directly confronted with their respective
    (and often duplicated) failings and dismissed them out of hand (and
    out of sheer ignorance apparently).

    >
    > But, as Garrett said, such critiques would have to be thorough,
    > detailed, technically savvy but still reader-friendly.


    It's been done every which way.

    > Such prose is
    > not particularly easy to write.  I think I can write reasonably well,
    > and will volunteer to help put such critiques into a clear form if
    > there is someone who wants to supply the analysis.  (And no, David, I
    > don't want to search the archives to piece it together!)


    Here is a good jumping off point that touches on some of the general
    issues with jQuery (and yes, it includes links to articles and
    examples, as Garrett knows all too well).

    http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html

    Here's another that links to an example of jQuery futility:-

    http://www.cinsoft.net/size.html

    And the parallel threads (here and in the jQuery forum) related to
    element dimensions that resulted in the linked example are certainly
    hard to miss (each is well over a hundred posts).

    >
    > I would suggest that if people take this up, that it's done one
    > library at a time.


    It was. And most of them are yesterday's news at this point.

    > A later collection can discuss them _en masse_ if
    > desired, but the detailed explanation of the individual libraries
    > should come first.


    Well, that bit's done (over-done some have said). Written,
    aggregated, alternately praised and railed against, sliced, diced,
    syndicated, Twittered, Reddited, etc. Those who missed them must have
    been living in a vacuum for the past few years.

    >
    > Garrett's outline above is a decent start, although I would prefer a
    > critique that at least starts at a higher level than his Prototype
    > essay.


    Hmmm. I thought one of his "points" was that he "started at a higher
    level" (whatever that meant).

    > One about jQuery might start for instance discussing
    > objections to some of the features that the jQuery community actively
    > promotes, starting with the "find something, do something" mantra


    Repeated endlessly to the point where regulars started to complain
    about the repetition.

    > (questions about inefficiencies, about proliferation of event
    > handlers,


    That point eventually sunk in for the jQuery authors; unfortunately,
    their response was to attempt to can and brand delegation as
    "Live" (nd what a disaster that was/is).

    > about whether CSS queries are ever the right way to choose
    > elements, etc.)


    You'll never convince Web designers of that. It's their "in".

    > and perhaps hitting on chaining and the multiple
    > meanings of the "$" function.


    Classics, but nobody cares.

    > But eventually the sorts of details
    > Garrett exposes for Prototype would be included too.
    >
    > Although these are critiques, they should be expository writing and
    > not attempt to persuade users against those particular libraries.


    That would be like writing a critique about 70's models Pintos without
    attempting to dissuade drivers from buying them.

    > The
    > attitude should be one of, "If you're going to consider this library
    > you might want to know about these problems," and not, "You should not
    > bother with this library."


    That would miss the bigger picture. Browser scripting is about
    simple, lightweight, context-specific functions (and yes, they should
    be re-usable); it is *not* about magic GP libraries that attempt to
    solve every problem for everybody. Never has been and never will.
    But It's hard to convince newcomers whose experience and expertise are
    with other languages. It's harder still to convince Web designers,
    many of whom have backgrounds in graphic arts that CSS selectors are
    not suitable for DOM traversal.

    Best of luck to you though!
    David Mark, Jun 17, 2010
    #16
  17. On 6/16/2010 6:29 PM, David Mark wrote:
    > On Jun 16, 8:43 pm, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >> On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >>>> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >>>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    >>>>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    >>>>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    >>>>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >>


    [...]

    >>
    >>> I've done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some
    >>> of it recently.

    >>
    >> That is untrue.

    >
    > History says otherwise.
    >
    >>
    >> I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours.

    >
    > Then I assume you've done so repeatedly at gunpoint.
    >


    Lets be very clear on this: There is nothing of yours that I have
    copied. Ever.

    If you believe otherwise, then it's time for you to get very specific
    with an example.


    [...]

    >
    > Oh piss off. You respect me enough to imitate me years later. It's
    > quite a compliment, even from a certified loon.
    >


    No, I am not imitating anything of yours. To be frank, you have personal
    characteristics that I do not aspire to be likened to.

    [...]

    >
    > And everybody knows full well who spent years detailing the jQuery
    > follies.
    >


    One person did that? And everybody knows who it is? Miss reality any?

    You have complained about jQuery for years but not all discussions are
    yours; you certainly don't have rights or intellectual ownership over
    discussions on jQuery.

    [...]

    >
    > Long ago published by me. Years later, you want to chime in. What
    > audience do you think you are playing to anyway? The vast majority of
    > readers (excluding newcomers) have heard this stuff so many times they
    > are sick of it (and have said so repeatedly).
    >


    One of the significant differences between you and I is that I am not
    trying play any audience. Really. I don't care that nobody uses APE.

    The reasons I've heard for being "sick of" your rants is -- and I know
    you don't want to hear it but you're asking for it - is that they come
    off as being personal (some even say jealous) and that they are badly
    organized, poorly formatted, and unfocused.

    You bring up good points, but you do so with in an emotional manner and
    disorganization, and often ironically claiming how awful jquery is, yet
    trying to compete with that, while claiming that you are superior, yet
    also saying that your alternative is a parody.

    Reading jQuery and fiding bugs is easy. Try to understand the difference
    between that and publishing an article that can explain the those
    problems to the rest of the world.

    [...]

    >
    > No. :)
    >


    No links to your best and legendary reviews? That is what the OP is
    asking for.

    I really don't see what purpose your replies fulfill. It seems to be a
    personal issue.

    [...]

    >
    > I have no need to "talk" to anyone about jQuery at this time.


    Uh-huh.

    [...]

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 17, 2010
    #17
  18. On 6/16/2010 6:56 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >>>>> Joe Nine wrote:
    >>>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? [ ... ]


    [...]

    > But, as Garrett said, such critiques would have to be thorough,
    > detailed, technically savvy but still reader-friendly. Such prose is
    > not particularly easy to write. I think I can write reasonably well,


    I agree with both of those. It's not easy to write that stuff and yes,
    you do write reasonably well.

    >
    > Garrett's outline above is a decent start, although I would prefer a
    > critique that at least starts at a higher level than his Prototype
    > essay. One about jQuery might start for instance discussing
    > objections to some of the features that the jQuery community actively
    > promotes, starting with the "find something, do something" mantra
    > (questions about inefficiencies, about proliferation of event
    > handlers, about whether CSS queries are ever the right way to choose
    > elements, etc.) and perhaps hitting on chaining and the multiple
    > meanings of the "$" function. But eventually the sorts of details
    > Garrett exposes for Prototype would be included too.
    >


    The $ function was mentioned in the PrototypeJS review.

    | What Does $ Do?
    |
    | * $ does not have a clearly defined meaning as to what the function
    | actually does.
    | * The dollar sign is intended to be reserved for machine-generated
    | code.
    |
    | PrototypeJS $ function gets an element or array of elements. Calling
    | $ results in a bare minimum of three function calls: $, isString, and
    | Element.extend and a maximum of over 135 function calls.

    I took a look at the "find something, do something" mantra/pattern here:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/6479712b867c30d1?dmode=source

    [...]

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 17, 2010
    #18
  19. Joe Nine

    David Mark Guest

    On Jun 16, 10:32 pm, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > On 6/16/2010 6:29 PM, David Mark wrote:
    >
    > > On Jun 16, 8:43 pm, Garrett Smith<>  wrote:
    > >> On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<>    wrote:
    > >>>> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<>      wrote:
    > >>>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    > >>>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    > >>>>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    > >>>>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    > >>>>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    > >>> I've done all of the hard work.  You yourself were just parroting some
    > >>> of it recently.

    >
    > >> That is untrue.

    >
    > > History says otherwise.

    >
    > >> I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours.

    >
    > > Then I assume you've done so repeatedly at gunpoint.

    >
    > Lets be very clear on this: There is nothing of yours that I have
    > copied. Ever.


    Let's be very clear. You have. Perhaps, for whatever reason, you
    don't even realize it.

    >
    > If you believe otherwise, then it's time for you to get very specific
    > with an example.


    Haven't we been over *that* enough times? Start with your recent
    obsession with queries and attributes vis-a-vis jQuery.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    > > Oh piss off.  You respect me enough to imitate me years later.  It's
    > > quite a compliment, even from a certified loon.

    >
    > No, I am not imitating anything of yours. To be frank, you have personal
    > characteristics that I do not aspire to be likened to.


    LOL. You really think you are playing to some imaginary crowd, don't
    you? Anyone who has read this group knows you are full of it. Anyone
    new to it will find out soon enough.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    > > And everybody knows full well who spent years detailing the jQuery
    > > follies.

    >
    > One person did that? And everybody knows who it is? Miss reality any?


    Who is most famous for it? And you are not one to crack about
    reality.

    >
    > You have complained about jQuery for years but not all discussions are
    > yours;


    Complained?! That's a pretty disingenuous characterization.

    > you certainly don't have rights or intellectual ownership over
    > discussions on jQuery.


    I pretty much invented the art of the jQuery critique though, didn't
    I?

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    > > Long ago published by me.  Years later, you want to chime in.  What
    > > audience do you think you are playing to anyway?  The vast majority of
    > > readers (excluding newcomers) have heard this stuff so many times they
    > > are sick of it (and have said so repeatedly).

    >
    > One of the significant differences between you and I is that I am not
    > trying play any audience. Really. I don't care that nobody uses APE.


    Who said anything about APE? I knew it was coming though.

    >
    > The reasons I've heard for being "sick of" your rants is -- and I know
    > you don't want to hear it but you're asking for it - is that they come
    > off as being personal (some even say jealous)


    LOL. The original gripe from Resig and co. was "where's your way cool
    library". Then when I showed them up, it was "aw, you are just
    jealous coz nobody uses your library". Wake up, that was almost three
    years ago.

    > and that they are badly
    > organized, poorly formatted, and unfocused.


    Whatever you think of them, they trump your nothingness, don't they?

    >
    > You bring up good points, but you do so with in an emotional manner and
    > disorganization, and often ironically claiming how awful jquery is, yet
    > trying to compete with that, while claiming that you are superior, yet
    > also saying that your alternative is a parody.


    Compete with jQuery? My Library is nothing like jQuery. Modular vs.
    Interdependent; a dynamic and well thought-out API vs. a static,
    inflexible "$" factory; and a comparable build is smaller, faster and
    (as demonstrated ad nauseam) better at queries (the one thing jQuery
    claims to do well). Minified it is roughly 1.5x the size, but with
    100x the features (it's like jQuery + 100 plug-ins).

    And, as you well know, my comment of parody was related to one small
    part of it. Just who do you think you are fooling with this tripe?

    >
    > Reading jQuery and fiding bugs is easy.


    Sneering from the sidelines (in a long-empty stadium) is even
    easier. :)

    > Try to understand the difference
    > between that and publishing an article that can explain the those
    > problems to the rest of the world.


    All I know is that you've done neither. Meanwhile, my patterns have
    found their way into all of the "major" libraries. Yours too I'm
    sure.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    >
    > > No.  :)

    >
    > No links to your best and legendary reviews? That is what the OP is
    > asking for.


    And, as is obvious, if you really cared about the OP, you'd have
    posted the links. You know damned well where to find them.

    >
    > I really don't see what purpose your replies fulfill. It seems to be a
    > personal issue.


    You seem to have personal issues; as of late, you seem desperate to
    carve a niche for yourself in the library critique business. I don't
    see why you replied to my post other than to call attention to some
    unwritten review of yours.
    David Mark, Jun 17, 2010
    #19
  20. On 6/16/2010 8:11 PM, David Mark wrote:
    > On Jun 16, 10:32 pm, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >> On 6/16/2010 6:29 PM, David Mark wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Jun 16, 8:43 pm, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >>>> On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
    >>>>>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
    >>>>>>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
    >>>>>>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
    >>>>>>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> I've done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some
    >>>>> of it recently.

    >>
    >>>> That is untrue.

    >>
    >>> History says otherwise.

    >>
    >>>> I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours.

    >>
    >>> Then I assume you've done so repeatedly at gunpoint.

    >>
    >> Lets be very clear on this: There is nothing of yours that I have
    >> copied. Ever.

    >
    > Let's be very clear. You have. Perhaps, for whatever reason, you
    > don't even realize it.
    >
    >>
    >> If you believe otherwise, then it's time for you to get very specific
    >> with an example.

    >
    > Haven't we been over *that* enough times? Start with your recent
    > obsession with queries and attributes vis-a-vis jQuery.
    >


    So let me get this straight: I reviewed code from jQuery. This bothers
    you because you believe that I copied you.

    Did I get that right?

    [...]

    >
    > All I know is that you've done neither. Meanwhile, my patterns have
    > found their way into all of the "major" libraries. Yours too I'm
    > sure.
    >

    [...]

    I've looked for, but found no unit tests. If I'm going to use something,
    I want to run tests on it to verify the edge cases.

    Garrett
    Garrett Smith, Jun 17, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. hedgehog
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    137
    hedgehog
    Apr 6, 2007
  2. david.karr
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    128
    david.karr
    May 2, 2008
  3. Christoph Boget

    Dojo -> jQuery

    Christoph Boget, Jun 27, 2008, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    107
    dhtml
    Jun 27, 2008
  4. Aaron Gray
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    378
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
    Jul 27, 2008
  5. lorlarz
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    207
    David Mark
    Mar 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page