jQuery vs. My Library


D

David Mark

Having just read a post about jQuery vs. My Library, I think I need to
dispel some misunderstandings.

First off, there's no rationalizing or apologizing for jQuery. Twist it
around any way you like, but there's no justification for such a failure
(or series of failures to accurate). Second, it doesn't make the
slightest difference how many rubes got caught up in it over the past
few years (the operative word is "past"). Third, don't believe
_anything_ you read on that miserable Ajaxian site. One of their
editors is an "evangelist" for jQuery. :(

The main point of the post seemed to be that jQuery was "concise"
because it was somehow designed to be that way (rather than full of
random goofs). Of course, its tangled up, interdependent mess of an API
is not any more concise than the optional layer offered with My Library.

Some random samples from a test page:-

E().loadHtml('<div><strong>This is a
test</strong></div>').appendTo(document.body);

Q('div:first-child').show().setOpacity(0.5);

myEl = E('#myid');
myEl.onHelp(function() { alert('test1') }).onContextClick(function() {
alert('test2') });
html = myEl.htmlOuter();

Personally, I don't care for such "chained" gobbledygook, but there it
is. No more or less concise than jQuery (or the like), detachable,
readable (under the hood too) and easily extensible. The various
globals (e.g. E, Q, D, W) are actually constructors, which allows for
leveraging all of the wonderful OO features included in all ES
implementations (see F and I for examples). jQuery has a $ function
that returns a new jQuery object. :(

So more "concise" code and a more "elegant" API is complete bullshit.
(and that's usually the main argument).

Then there is the question of why jQuery fucks up so much on basic
operations. For instance, if you want to measure the height of an
element, it is likely because you want to adjust that height and put it
back. Do I even need to say any more about that at this point? The
"designers" of jQuery didn't make some conscious decision to **** that
up. They just fucked it up (and gained nothing in the process). End of
story on the "it's flawed but there's a reason and it really helps"
theory. JFTR, when it comes to sizing and positioning elements, there's
nothing close to My Library, which doesn't care what box model you use
at all (you can even mix them in one document). So night and day there.

Then there is the fact that the sorts of mistakes made by the jQuery
authors (that sit uncorrected for years) indicate gross incompetence.
How do you **** up reading/writing/removing attributes? Isn't that the
most basic low-level operation and shouldn't there be all sorts of tests
to prevent regressions? Well, it is and they don't have tests because
they don't understand what they are testing.

All the more laughable given Resig's infamous "you don't understand
test-driven development" retort to a review from two years back. He
doesn't understand... anything at all it seems. Years later, his
attribute-handling is still all fucked up and after wasting days arguing
about it, they decided not to fix it at all (nobody really understood
what was wrong). They didn't fix the height/width stuff either. If you
can't read and write documents (not to mention measure elements), you
can't create widgets on top of them (at least not good widgets) and you
sure as hell can't _query_ them with any degree of consistency.
Obviously, as I invented the feature test for broken attributes, My
Library has a much better handle on attributes. ;)

So, jQuery is just a boondoggle. It's not that they designed it to deal
with "certain cases" instead of "all cases". They just fucked up
randomly and are consistently surprised by what it does (not a good sign).

On the other hand, after spending a week testing, I am pleased to
announce that Cinsoft supports My Library in the following browsers:

All of them.

But seriously, we've tested successfully in:-

IE 5-8
FF 1-3.5
Safari 2-4
Opera 5-10
Netscape 3-9

All modes and virtually all platforms with few issues to report (and
most of those fixed immediately).

And yes, there's a growing community of people who are tired of using
lousy browser scripts and putting up with authors who can't fix
anything. They are helping to test in ancient browsers because it helps
to illuminate problems that could show up in other lesser browsers (e.g.
mobile devices). It's not so that people can use NN4.7 (though they
certainly can if they want).

As for size, AIUI, the "new" jQuery is 70K minified. Well, the full
build of My Libary, which is equivelent to jQuery plus dozens of
plug-ins is (and always has been) 139K minified. Yes, it is the same
size with "support" for all of those ancient browsers (quotes indicate
there's nothing in there specific to any of them) as before those were
even attempted. So much for the "trying to do everything" bloating theory.

And take a guess which is faster. Rather, don't guess but try the the
Speed Test. The "do everything" cross-browser script that doesn't need
dozens of dubious plug-ins is much faster than the "optimized" (more
like lobotomized) script. And not just at queries either; it's much
faster at everything, which is crucial for support handheld devices, old
PC's, etc. Of course, everything out there is faster than jQuery. This
latest release claims something about a 3X increase in something. It's
likely still behind everyone else, but I see brain-washed rubes cheering
about the "breakthrough" anyway. And speaking of the rest (e.g. YUI,
Dojo, Prototype), they are relatively slow as well. They all made the
same mistake (too much over-engineered and inappropriate bullshit
bogging them down).

Must come as quite a shock to those who spent years compiling browser
sniffs, explaining all the while that to be truly cross-browser would
result in really slow, bloated code. ;)

And, of course, the whole thing is modular to a fault, whereas jQuery is
just an inorganic lump that must always be replaced wholesale.

Questions?
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

Helbrax

Having just read a post about jQuery vs. My Library, I think I need to
dispel some misunderstandings.

First off, there's no rationalizing or apologizing for jQuery.  Twist it
around any way you like, but there's no justification for such a failure
 (or series of failures to accurate).  Second, it doesn't make the
slightest difference how many rubes got caught up in it over the past
few years (the operative word is "past").  Third, don't believe
_anything_ you read on that miserable Ajaxian site.  One of their
editors is an "evangelist" for jQuery.  :(

The main point of the post seemed to be that jQuery was "concise"
because it was somehow designed to be that way (rather than full of
random goofs).  Of course, its tangled up, interdependent mess of an API
is not any more concise than the optional layer offered with My Library.

Some random samples from a test page:-

E().loadHtml('<div><strong>This is a
test</strong></div>').appendTo(document.body);

Q('div:first-child').show().setOpacity(0.5);

myEl = E('#myid');
myEl.onHelp(function() { alert('test1') }).onContextClick(function() {
alert('test2') });
html = myEl.htmlOuter();

Personally, I don't care for such "chained" gobbledygook, but there it
is.  No more or less concise than jQuery (or the like), detachable,
readable (under the hood too) and easily extensible.  The various
globals (e.g. E, Q, D, W) are actually constructors, which allows for
leveraging all of the wonderful OO features included in all ES
implementations (see F and I for examples).  jQuery has a $ function
that returns a new jQuery object.  :(

So more "concise" code and a more "elegant" API is complete bullshit.
(and that's usually the main argument).

Then there is the question of why jQuery fucks up so much on basic
operations.  For instance, if you want to measure the height of an
element, it is likely because you want to adjust that height and put it
back.  Do I even need to say any more about that at this point?  The
"designers" of jQuery didn't make some conscious decision to **** that
up.  They just fucked it up (and gained nothing in the process).  Endof
story on the "it's flawed but there's a reason and it really helps"
theory.  JFTR, when it comes to sizing and positioning elements, there's
nothing close to My Library, which doesn't care what box model you use
at all (you can even mix them in one document).  So night and day there..

Then there is the fact that the sorts of mistakes made by the jQuery
authors (that sit uncorrected for years) indicate gross incompetence.
How do you **** up reading/writing/removing attributes?  Isn't that the
most basic low-level operation and shouldn't there be all sorts of tests
to prevent regressions?  Well, it is and they don't have tests because
they don't understand what they are testing.

All the more laughable given Resig's infamous "you don't understand
test-driven development" retort to a review from two years back.  He
doesn't understand... anything at all it seems.  Years later, his
attribute-handling is still all fucked up and after wasting days arguing
about it, they decided not to fix it at all (nobody really understood
what was wrong).  They didn't fix the height/width stuff either.  If you
can't read and write documents (not to mention measure elements), you
can't create widgets on top of them (at least not good widgets) and you
sure as hell can't _query_ them with any degree of consistency.
Obviously, as I invented the feature test for broken attributes, My
Library has a much better handle on attributes.  ;)

So, jQuery is just a boondoggle.  It's not that they designed it to deal
with "certain cases" instead of "all cases".  They just fucked up
randomly and are consistently surprised by what it does (not a good sign)..

On the other hand, after spending a week testing, I am pleased to
announce that Cinsoft supports My Library in the following browsers:

All of them.

But seriously, we've tested successfully in:-

IE 5-8
FF 1-3.5
Safari 2-4
Opera 5-10
Netscape 3-9

All modes and virtually all platforms with few issues to report (and
most of those fixed immediately).

And yes, there's a growing community of people who are tired of using
lousy browser scripts and putting up with authors who can't fix
anything.  They are helping to test in ancient browsers because it helps
to illuminate problems that could show up in other lesser browsers (e.g.
mobile devices).  It's not so that people can use NN4.7 (though they
certainly can if they want).

As for size, AIUI, the "new" jQuery is 70K minified.  Well, the full
build of My Libary, which is equivelent to jQuery plus dozens of
plug-ins is (and always has been) 139K minified.  Yes, it is the same
size with "support" for all of those ancient browsers (quotes indicate
there's nothing in there specific to any of them) as before those were
even attempted.  So much for the "trying to do everything" bloating theory.

And take a guess which is faster.  Rather, don't guess but try the the
Speed Test.  The "do everything" cross-browser script that doesn't need
dozens of dubious plug-ins is much faster than the "optimized" (more
like lobotomized) script.  And not just at queries either; it's much
faster at everything, which is crucial for support handheld devices, old
PC's, etc.  Of course, everything out there is faster than jQuery.  This
latest release claims something about a 3X increase in something.  It's
likely still behind everyone else, but I see brain-washed rubes cheering
about the "breakthrough" anyway.  And speaking of the rest (e.g. YUI,
Dojo, Prototype), they are relatively slow as well.  They all made the
same mistake (too much over-engineered and inappropriate bullshit
bogging them down).

Must come as quite a shock to those who spent years compiling browser
sniffs, explaining all the while that to be truly cross-browser would
result in really slow, bloated code.  ;)

And, of course, the whole thing is modular to a fault, whereas jQuery is
just an inorganic lump that must always be replaced wholesale.

Questions?

I'm not a javascript guru by any means(recent posts will probably
demonstrate that). However, I am getting a pretty good handle on the
language. I've tried all of the "big boy" libraries in the past. It
didn't take me long to abandon all of them.
I abandoned prototype.js because they were using Object.prototype.
WTF? I *think* the eventually coded around that, but I'm sure they
replaced it with something worse. Also, why use the name prototype?
Why not just name it "if" or "function"(or "!function")? :p
Dojo was slow, and usually the main page of the website would crash
the browser. Junk.
jQuery looked appealing at first, until I tried it out. After I coded
a few test cases, I looked back and had absolutely no idea what any of
the code meant. It was also twice the size as if I had done it
normally. It also didn't work in one of the browsers I tested it in
(my hand code worked fine).
After having to include/import the 13 .js file from the YUI framework
just to get a simple AJAX example working I gave up.

I would be more than happy to give My Library a try. Even if it's
only half as good as you say it is, that would be far greater than any
of the other frameworks perform(despite their claims otherwise).

What license is it under? I remember seeing a discussion about
licensing, but I must have missed the final decision.
 
M

Matt Kruse

The various
globals (e.g. E, Q, D, W) are actually constructors, which allows for
leveraging all of the wonderful OO features included in all ES
implementations (see F and I for examples).

With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well
as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc

Can I do
E("#mydiv .classname").hide(); // multiple elements
with your lib?
What if there are no elements found?
All the more laughable given Resig's infamous "you don't understand
test-driven development" retort to a review from two years back.

I would like to see your lib run against jQuery's test suite. Not all
would be expected to pass, of course, since they may look for some
different results.

If you could write some wrapper so that your lib could "plug into" the
tests, that would be cool and make people more comfortable with moving
over.
But seriously, we've tested successfully in:-
IE 5-8
FF 1-3.5
Safari 2-4
Opera 5-10
Netscape 3-9
All modes and virtually all platforms with few issues to report (and
most of those fixed immediately).

It would be interesting to see how you support functionality that
simply isn't possible in older browsers. Do you just not do it? If so,
then are they really "supported"?
And take a guess which is faster.  Rather, don't guess but try the the
Speed Test.

Have you? Will you post the results?

Matt Kruse
 
D

David Mark

Helbrax said:
I'm not a javascript guru by any means(recent posts will probably
demonstrate that).

I'll take your word for that. :) I assume you are not a browser
scripting guru either.
However, I am getting a pretty good handle on the
language.

That's good. But understand there is an additional discipline to master
if you plan to write JS for browsers.
I've tried all of the "big boy" libraries in the past. It
didn't take me long to abandon all of them.

You are learning. :)
I abandoned prototype.js because they were using Object.prototype.

Yes, fatal. Took them years to stop doing that. Imagine a million
howling code monkeys "arguing" endlessly about nothing. That's what
these projects are like.
WTF? I *think* the eventually coded around that, but I'm sure they
replaced it with something worse.

Probably. Last time I looked at their code (a month ago), I recoiled in
horror. It's the same functions over and over, once for each browser
they've pawed. It's pure insanity that would have been locked up in
2001. Using something like that in 2010 is unthinkable.
Also, why use the name prototype?

Because they are stupid. ;)
Why not just name it "if" or "function"(or "!function")? :p

How about "constructor?"
Dojo was slow, and usually the main page of the website would crash
the browser. Junk.

You got that straight. And the laughable thing is that they think they
are fast (their speed tests just don't take loading into account).
There's a new Dojo though (that I cleaned and sped up considerable).
They have unearthed it recently (they wouldn't look at it while I was
around for some reason). The one guy ran off to try to rewrite
everything I wrote for the loader on Github (God I hate _that_ site),
but predictably fucked it all up. First thing he did was copy Dojo's
attr, isFunction, isArray, etc. The others over there are now
applauding his "great efforts" and oh God save us. No hope IMO. :(
jQuery looked appealing at first, until I tried it out.
:)

After I coded
a few test cases, I looked back and had absolutely no idea what any of
the code meant.

Yes, readability is some sort of myth associated with that project.
Debugging is a nightmare with all of that chaining crap too. Why they
are so obsessed with the number of lines is beyond me (it all gets
minified in the end). Stupid. :(
It was also twice the size as if I had done it
normally.

But... Write less, do more? That's what the box said. :)
It also didn't work in one of the browsers I tested it in
(my hand code worked fine).

Well, that's probably one of the browsers "they don't care about"
(quoting Resig). Why don't you just upgrade?
After having to include/import the 13 .js file from the YUI framework
just to get a simple AJAX example working I gave up.

LOL. No shot. They are the worst sort of weasels. All of those
disingenuous graphs about browser grading and GZIP and it turns out the
underlying DOM scripts (where the rubber meets the road) are re-treads
with nails in them. What the hell are they doing over there Crockford?
Did they set out to **** everything up and leave it that way forever
or was I seeing things?
I would be more than happy to give My Library a try. Even if it's
only half as good as you say it is, that would be far greater than any
of the other frameworks perform(despite their claims otherwise).

And I would be more than happy to provide support for it. I estimate it
is at least half as good as I say it is and getting a little better
every day. Make no mistake, it is not perfect. It sat for years with
all sorts of glaring typos and gaps in logic. Apparently nobody was
paying attention as I found and fixed the bulk of them hours after my
return. And the higher up you go in the interfaces, the more likely you
are to encounter incongruities. Overall, it was really more slapped
together (client and server side) than designed. I'm open to changes
and the user base is low, so it's flexible.

Recently I've gotten a few new clients because of the new licensing
deal, so I spend much of my day working with (and occasionally on) the
My Library code now. One is a recovering Dojo user. I get a lot of
inquiries from nervous jQuery shops as well. There's at least one
person in each that sees through the bullshit and realizes that they can
change now or die. The Flash module seems to be particularly popular.
Not surprising as all of the other Flash scripts (especially Adobe's)
are complete shit. And that definitely includes the awful SWFObject,
which creates more problems than it solves.
What license is it under? I remember seeing a discussion about
licensing, but I must have missed the final decision.

Um, good question. MIT something or other--see the source. Basically,
as long as you don't try to steal it and pass it off as your own, you'll
be alright. ;)
 
S

S.T.

Questions?

1. Is it being used *anywhere* right now where code can actually be
seen? Aside from a single lawyer's website with a somewhat uninspiring
look and compressed code, never seen it in the wild to view what the
code usage might look like. Docs look like a very lengthy list of
methods with curious naming pattern -- tough to visualize.

2. Target audience would appear to be experienced JS developers who are
concerned about legacy browsers. Fair representation? Yes, I realize
it's a thousand-fold better than anything currently out there as you're
a thousand-fold better than Resig, the YUI team, etc.... but that aside,
am I on base with the actual target audience?
 
D

David Mark

Matt said:
With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well
as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc

Yeah, I've never been married to those names. Longer names (or aliases)
would be a good idea.
Can I do
E("#mydiv .classname").hide(); // multiple elements
with your lib?

Q("#mydiv .classname").show(false);
What if there are no elements found?

It will dutifully hide no elements.
I would like to see your lib run against jQuery's test suite. Not all
would be expected to pass, of course, since they may look for some
different results.

I'm adding so many unit tests at the moment that I'll have everything
covered. I'll look at it when I'm done to see if I forgot anything.
Any suite that jQuery passes can hardly be comprehensive. Also, realize
that I did not bother to do every CSS selector. I may well fill in the
blanks in the future. See the Speed Test page to get an idea of what is
supported (obviously, if it is on there, it is supported).
If you could write some wrapper so that your lib could "plug into" the
tests, that would be cool and make people more comfortable with moving
over.

Well, it plugs into the SlickSpeed (sp?) because it just looks for a $.
That's the only reason I included that (optional) identifier.
It would be interesting to see how you support functionality that
simply isn't possible in older browsers. Do you just not do it? If so,
then are they really "supported"?

It's very simple. If functionality is impossible, the related features
do not exist in the API. So you start out each app with something like:-

var API;

if (API && API.areFeatures('getEBCS', 'setOpacity')) {
}

Or, if using the OO interface, it gets even simpler:-

var Q;

if (Q && Q.prototype.fadeIn) {
// For sure can query and fade!
}

If you notice, the test page demonstrates the progressive enhancement
capabilities quite well (some might say stunningly--I would).

The current practice is the "bull in a china shop" method (e.g. call
anything and expect anything to happen).

So "supported" in terms of the whole library means that features that
are possible are present and work properly and features that impossible
are not present. That's it. And no, not all of the above are not
perfect in that regard. See the discussion group for details.
Have you? Will you post the results?

Huh? The Speed Test on my site. I've ran it in everything from IE8 to
FF1 (and most in between). My Library kills its contemporaries (the
further back you go, the larger the margin). If I add QSA support
(estimated twelve lines), it will trounce all of the latest QSA wrappers
(e.g. Sizzle) as well. And if you mean the TaskSpeed results, yes I
will certainly post them. I'll post plenty more too. Stay tuned...
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

David Mark

Having just made up a post about jQuery vs. your crappy, unknown, untested
software you will now spam the newsgroups.

What are you, stupid? Matt Kruse posted it _here_ today (or late last
night). And no, I'm not posting a link. It's too soon. :)
 
H

Helbrax

That's good. But understand there is an additional discipline to master
if you plan to write JS for browsers.

Agreed. That's my biggest problem right now is that there are so many
inconsistencies among all the browsers, trying to learn all the
pitfalls is daunting. I feel like I'm coming in very late in the
game.
 
S

Stevo

David said:
Having just read a post about jQuery vs. My Library, I think I need to
dispel some misunderstandings.

Questions?

Is it really called "My Library" ?
 
D

David Mark

S.T. said:
1. Is it being used *anywhere* right now where code can actually be
seen?

Oh, hello [email protected] And of course it is. How could you miss it?!
Aside from a single lawyer's website with a somewhat uninspiring
look and compressed code, never seen it in the wild to view what the
code usage might look like.

An uninspiring look? Or do you mean uninspiring looks? And it's just a
mock-up waiting for some real content (e.g. some custom graphics).
Leave it alone.

And what the hell does the look have to do with the scripting? And what
does that 15K script (uncompressed, but minified) have to do with My
Library. It's like you are watching everything intently but somehow
mixing everything up. Glad you stopped to ask questions. :)
Docs look like a very lengthy list of
methods with curious naming pattern -- tough to visualize.

That's the API. And what is curious about names like createElement,
createFlash, getEBI, getEBTN, setOpacity, etc.? As mentioned
repeatedly, there's an OO layer that you can take or leave. Looks a lot
like jQuery too (just makes more sense).
2. Target audience would appear to be experienced JS developers who are
concerned about legacy browsers. Fair representation?

No. Legacy browsers is a red herring. The point of testing on as many
lesser browsers as possible is to expose cracks in the feature detection
and testing logic. That's all. You've got to figure that if the entire
build can load and run in NN4.7, as well as IE8, chances are good for
virtually anything else out there (and the future). Really good. ;)
Yes, I realize
it's a thousand-fold better than anything currently out there as you're
a thousand-fold better than Resig, the YUI team, etc....

You said all of that shit, not me. But if you think Resig has anything
on me when it comes to cross-browser scripting (or programming in
general), you are sadly deluded. The YUI "team" is just another million
monkeys as YUI is open source now. Such teams have faired very poorly
in the past when it comes to browser scripting (as one would imagine).
They might fair better at something like Frisbee golf. The list of
failed projects should sound familiar to anyone developing Websites
(probably got one or more on their servers right now).
but that aside,
am I on base with the actual target audience?

No. Picked off. Audience is anyone who scripts browsers. The most
advanced developers won't need it anyway. ;)
 
D

David Mark

Helbrax said:
if you plan to write JS for browsers.

Agreed. That's my biggest problem right now is that there are so many
inconsistencies among all the browsers, trying to learn all the
pitfalls is daunting. I feel like I'm coming in very late in the
game.

Don't panic. The ostensible vanguard is mired down in misconceptions
and the browsers have converged almost completely at this point. These
are the basic rules of browser scripting:-

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

And add:-

4. Keep everything as simple as possible

Of course, despite the granularity of My Library, it is still somewhat
the antithesis of the above. It's general, general, general and overly
complex for many contexts. As are the rest of them (to a ludicrous degree).
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Stevo

David said:
Yes it is.

That'll lead to some fun discussions :) Like calling your band "That
Band" and calling your first album "Their First Album". You can imagine
the fun when people go into the record store :)

Scenario:

Guy 1: Did you use jQuery or My Library?
Guy 2: Oh, *you* have a library?
Guy 1: No, why do you ask?

:)

Good luck with it. It will be amazing to have a library that people on
here actually approve of. Although, when there's a 10 message back and
forth just on what the word consise means, it'll be tough.
 
D

David Mark

Ivan said:
Stupid... no.

No? :)
You do realize everything you post here can be Googled and
read even months after you post it right?

WHAT?! OMG. But seriously, that's my point. A quick search could have
short-circuited your unfortunately inaccurate post.
Don't need to elaborate on what I've said when it's all been done for me:

Do tell!
"Someone is critical of a widely used library and at the same time promoting
their own library? Call me cynical, but given the inherent conflict of
interest I'd look for another opinion or 2 before taking their word as the
definitive answer."

And who said that? Unfortunately (again), I've been saying the same
thing about the "majors" for years and My Library is now free.

Better luck next post!
 
G

Garrett Smith

Matt said:
With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well
as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc
That would conflict with any code that uses:-

Element.prototype.myFunc = [...]
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

David Mark

Gregor said:
Stevo meinte:

The name's spot on, isn't it?

I like it, but I do keep having to explain it for some reason. :)

For those wondering, the answer is at the bottom of the front page
(headline: Build _Your_ Library). The whole point is that it can be
built to suit. there is a ton more flexibility coming on that front,
including filtering out the XHTML and frames support.

And I suppose it has a dual meaning in that it is truly My Library with
a few small assists (a couple of functions date to the CWR project).
Kangax has been a great help with pointing out silly mistakes and
oversights in the past. Recently others have stepped up to help with
testing, so it is becoming a (sort of) group effort.

I might allow authors to contribute modules as well. I figure I'll use
as much of Stockton's date/time/math stuff as I can wade through, but
there must be other (good) stockpiles out there looking for a home.
Could use a graphics module. Best advice is to start small as I am
going to be picky about what I put in there. ;)
 
D

David Mark

Garrett said:
Matt said:
With so many globals, I would suggest giving them full names as well
as the single-letter identifiers. E===Element, etc
That would conflict with any code that uses:-

Element.prototype.myFunc = [...]

Yes. It will likely end up as MyElement, MyForm, MyImage, MyDocument, etc.

var myEl = MyElement('#test');
 
D

David Mark

Stevo said:
That'll lead to some fun discussions :) Like calling your band "That
Band" and calling your first album "Their First Album". You can imagine
the fun when people go into the record store :)

My Library is not available in stores. :)
Scenario:

Guy 1: Did you use jQuery or My Library?

That will be a moot question soon enough.
Guy 2: Oh, *you* have a library?
Guy 1: No, why do you ask?

:)

Yes. Verbally, David Mark's library will suffice (though it perverts
the meaning of the name). ;)
Good luck with it.

Thanks, but I don't believe in luck.
It will be amazing to have a library that people on
here actually approve of.

Well, there are different levels of approval. Lets just say that nobody
here will rip it to shreds (or complain about browser compatibility).
And, of course, I'm here to answer or act on any complaints, rather than
off in some fantasy world basking in ignorance.
Although, when there's a 10 message back and
forth just on what the word consise means, it'll be tough.

Yes, that was an unfortunate waste of time. :(
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Matt Kruse

That will be a moot question soon enough.

I agree, though probably in a different way than you.

I'm curious, do you have any predictions? Goals? Time lines? What
exactly are you trying to accomplish and how will you know if you've
achieved it?

Matt Kruse
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top