Although I believe your criticisms of jQuery are without merit ...

[lorlarz]

Although I believe your criticisms of jQuery are without merit, I have
tried to see the fuss in a positive light. I, thusly, have decided
that perhaps there is a need for YET further transparency and YET more
done to provide an ease-of-review of the jQuery code. With this in
mind I have made recommendations to John Resig on how YET more ease-of-
review (and with it as much transparency as possible) could be
provided to users of the great jQuery JavaScript library, which proves
that unobtrusive javascript is the road to the future.

I am hoping the recommendations will be taken. In any case, jQuery
will always be a lot better than YUI.

 

[Peter Michaux]

Although I believe your criticisms of jQuery are without merit,

Have you searched the archives of this group. I believe there are many
criticisms completely justified.

I have
tried to see the fuss in a positive light. I, thusly, have decided
that perhaps there is a need for YET further transparency and YET more
done to provide an ease-of-review of the jQuery code.

If the reviewers are the same reviewers then what will be gained?

With this in
mind I have made recommendations to John Resig on how YET more ease-of-
review (and with it as much transparency as possible) could be
provided to users of the great jQuery JavaScript library, which proves
that unobtrusive javascript is the road to the future.

"proves"? That is a strong word.

I am hoping the recommendations will be taken. In any case, jQuery
will always be a lot better than YUI.

Why are you singling out YUI? What is so different about jQuery that
gives it an objective edge in technical correctness over YUI?

I don't understand the purpose of this post. What are you trying to
accomplish?

Peter

 

[lorlarz]

Have you searched the archives of this group. I believe there are many
criticisms completely justified.

I read a large number of them. None were specific and most seemed to
say simply:
"It is hard to see how it does what it does". With that in mind, I
made my
recommendations.

If the reviewers are the same reviewers then what will be gained?

With the feedback I gave John, there would be new reviers (many) and
they
would be _you_. I gave him a notion of how to display to users
exactly
what portions of the jQuery library they are using. This would be
complete
transparency, at least for the case at hand, and every single person
using the
library would have their competence as a reviewer greatly increased
(by virtue
of just the relevant parts being partialed out).

"proves"? That is a strong word.

"The proof of the pudding is in the eatting."

Why are you singling out YUI? What is so different about jQuery that
gives it an objective edge in technical correctness over YUI?

I doubt there is any great technical correctness to jQuery and, in
fact, likely
less. But it is much much more concise and easier in other ways too.

 

[Peter Michaux]

On Jul 22, 12:13 pm, lorlarz <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

If the reviewers are the same reviewers then what will be gained?

With the feedback I gave John, there would be new reviers (many) and
they
would be _you_.

No it won't. I have no personal interest in seeing jQuery improve. I
don't use it and don't like the API or the style of programming it
encourages. You will likely find that the regulars of this group, who
are more capable than I am, will have similar apathy when given the
opportunity to contribute to jQuery. (Users of other libraries are
likewise already busy enough.) The main complaint here, it seems to
me, is a library like jQuery positions itself as a panacea which it is
not. The unfounded hype is actually the most offensive part, in my
opinion. By critiquing the jQuery code, I think some of the regulars
here are trying to remove the laurels of those receiving so much
praise for writing the jQuery code. That is my take on it anyway.

[snip]

Peter

 

[beegee]

Although I believe your criticisms of jQuery are without merit, I have
tried to see the fuss in a positive light.  I, thusly, have decided
that perhaps there is a need for YET further transparency and YET more
done to provide an ease-of-review of the jQuery code.   With this in
mind I have made recommendations to John Resig on how YET more ease-of-
review (and with it as much transparency as possible) could be
provided to users of the great jQuery JavaScript library, which proves
that unobtrusive javascript is the road to the future.

I am hoping the recommendations will be taken.  In any case, jQuery
will always be a lot better than YUI.

Flame bait in sheep's clothing. Too bad most of us are too weary of
this debate to bite (or are on vacation). Try again in September

 

[dhtml]

I'm not following that argument so well:

1. You have made recommendations to John on how more ease-of-review
could be provided.
Therfore: unobtrusive javascript is the road to the future

I am unclear on what the premise means and how it proves (or even
infers) the conclusion true.

Can you elaborate?

Flame bait in sheep's clothing.

Based on what: The the criteria that you didn't list?

 

[David Mark]

Although I believe your criticisms of jQuery are without merit, I have

Mine? You are mistaken.

tried to see the fuss in a positive light.  I, thusly, have decided

What fuss? Just don't use it. Problem solved.

that perhaps there is a need for YET further transparency and YET more
done to provide an ease-of-review of the jQuery code.   With this in

It is staggeringly easy to review: the code is rubbish, the author is
clueless.

mind I have made recommendations to John Resig on how YET more ease-of-

Who are you?

review (and with it as much transparency as possible) could be
provided to users of the great jQuery JavaScript library, which proves

Oh hi John. Book sales down?

that unobtrusive javascript is the road to the future.

What an idiot.

I am hoping the recommendations will be taken.  In any case, jQuery
will always be a lot better than YUI.

Better how? And who in their right mind would use either of them? Or
Prototype or Mootools, etc., etc. Isn't this getting old?