[OT] book - jQuery

[Noway]

It's the same stupid analogy that is repeated constantly by proponents
of these libraries. It misses the point completely. If browser
scripting is to assembler, what jQuery is to a bad program written in
assembly language. In other words, jQuery is 50K of junk code, not a
C compiler.

Maybe so, but repeating over and over that something is junk wouldn't
make that a fact.

Perhaps things are not ideal but calling something junk which obviously
isn't will not bring your criticism any credibility.
Eg. here is one more realistic view on which I completely agree,
http://groups.google.hr/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/616ecf9f40576d3c

Prototype is a complete crock as well. Always has been. What can you
say about a Javascript program that adds lots of bloat to "work
around" prototypal inheritance, yet is named "Prototype." That's the
mindset. And it is full of browser sniffing, which the developers
must constantly twiddle with to make it "work" in a handful of
browsers in their default configurations.

Mootools is the same stupid thing as far as inheritance. Last I
checked, it is also sniffs the user agent string (an automatic F.)
And IIRC, their documentation states (or stated at one point) that
most of the methods require an "XHTML doctype" (they meant they don't
support quirks mode.) That pretty much sums them up.

Never used Dojo or paid much attention to it. It is a huge framework,
so it should be a non-entity on the Web. I'm sure lots of hacks are
using it behind corporate firewalls. They'll regret it eventually,
but at least they won't foul up the Web in the process.

So there are no good frameworks out yet; can that be changed?

The "jQuery vs. Prototype" arguments are but noise from two camps of
myopic and ignorant fanatics. Here is a snippet from one of them I
recently noticed at the bottom of a blog entry:

I believe you on that.

How is programming for failure at the outset a matter of taste? It is
a matter of necessity for those with no experience or ability, but who
would want such people writing, testing and maintaining scripts? It's
ridiculous.

I think you're just jealous. Jealous in the same way c++ programmers
were toward VB camp when VB gained popularity (or os/2 vs MS for that
matter).

Nothing. But it is ironic that a library that promotes terribly
inefficient code patterns would be referred to as "fast." And concise
for jQuery means illegible + 50K. But, of course, if you have never
known anything but jQuery, you are unlikely to recognize this.

As I said, matter of taste.
You obviously dislike js frameworks and you're unhappy about where is
world going to. To change that you can start something on your own and
attract attention of developers by better/faster libraries, or improve
existing frameworks by joining their teams.
One thing is sure, js frameworks are to stay and are only gaining in
popularity because they are useful.

 

[Noway]

I would aver that the level you write at merely changes the SORT of bugs
you generate, not thir frequency. ;0-)

I agree that this is horrible; I mean solving bugs in business logic
instead of solving bugs with stack overflow and division by zero. )

 

[David Mark]

Maybe so, but repeating over and over that something is junk wouldn't
make that a fact.

I told you to search the archives. It's a *proven* fact that jQuery
is junk and John Resig has learned nothing from the experience.

Perhaps things are not ideal but calling something junk which obviously
isn't will not bring your criticism any credibility.

See above.

Eg. here is one more realistic view on which I completely agree,http://groups.google.hr/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/616ecf9f40576d3c

Not really interested in what you agree or disagree with.

So there are no good frameworks out yet; can that be changed?

Yes, but a general-purpose library (or framework) makes little sense
for most Websites.

I believe you on that.



I think you're just jealous. Jealous in the same way c++ programmers
were toward VB camp when VB gained popularity (or os/2 vs MS for that
matter).

Jealous of what? I evict these bums (and their assorted lousy
scripts) everywhere I go. And VB is the perfect analogy (most of them
were bums too, but hardly worthy of jealousy.)

As I said, matter of taste.

As I said, not a matter of taste (a matter of ignorance.)

You obviously dislike js frameworks and you're unhappy about where is
Obviously.

world going to. To change that you can start something on your own and

[snip]

Try Google.

[snip]

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

I agree that this is horrible; I mean solving bugs in business logic
instead of solving bugs with stack overflow and division by zero. )

C crashes youre machine.
Php crashes your database programs.

<shrug>

Bugs is bugs. Backup first, and teat in a sandbox.

 

[Kenny]

lists: your web page (it's a page, not a site--google "Burton
snowboards" if you want to see where the bar is set on "site") did not
come up.

Helllooooo SEO!

[snip]

Oddly enough, "David Mark" and "Javascript" does bring up the My
Library *site* (or application if you prefer.) If is around #12 on
Yahoo. Stranger still, no mailing list posts at all.

[snip]

/And/ you use Yahoo to search?! This is going to be tougher than I thought.

Well, glad to hear you are a millionaire.

Peace, kxo

 

[David Mark]

[snip]

lists: your web page (it's a page, not a site--google "Burton
snowboards" if you want to see where the bar is set on "site") did not
come up.
Helllooooo SEO!

[snip]

Oddly enough, "David Mark" and "Javascript" does bring up the My
Library *site* (or application if you prefer.)  If is around #12 on
Yahoo.  Stranger still, no mailing list posts at all.

[snip]

/And/ you use Yahoo to search?! This is going to be tougher than I thought.

No, pinhead. I use Google to search. Apparently you don't search at
all.

[snip]

 

[Andrea Costantini]

Here is the script by "Kangax" that is featured in the article.  It
has nothing to do with Prototype.  In fact, at least part of it is
lifted directly from my library.

Yeah let us all know when your fantastic library is 'complete', maybe
we'll use it. Until then, I will stay sane using a framework like
jQuery.

 

[David Mark]

Yeah let us all know when your fantastic library is 'complete', maybe
we'll use it. Until then, I will stay sane using a framework like
jQuery.

It is far more 'complete' and reliable than jQuery and has been since
it was posted. Far more compatible and future-proof as well. Works
with frames and XHTML too and trounces jQuery in speed tests
(especially in the quasi-standard browsers.) There's really no
comparison.

Granted, the documentation is completely lacking, but the API is very
simple and all objects can be "inspected" and traced in the debug
console on the test page. Same page is full of useful examples for
most of the modules.

I've replaced jQuery a few times with code from my builder. It's
amazing how much faster and concise the projects became. And if
anything ever goes wrong, the owner can talk to the person who wrote
every line of code (me), rather than some forum full of neophytes who
have never even *seen* the code.

You'd really have to be out of your mind to use jQuery (search the
archives for more info.)

 

[beegee]

As I said, matter of taste.
You obviously dislike js frameworks and you're unhappy about where is
world going to. To change that you can start something on your own and
attract attention of developers by better/faster libraries, or improve
existing frameworks by joining their teams.
One thing is sure, js frameworks are to stay and are only gaining in
popularity because they are useful.

I don't know. There is a problem with predicting a sea change when
you're stuck in the current. There were people saying "Java applets
are here to stay", "VBScript is here to stay", "COM is here to stay".
Javascript libraries that manipulate the DOM are not a guarranteed
keeper. Will some people always use them? Yes, definitely but,
remember, VB's curse was that it was entirely relegated to in-house
applications. I, like you, am stuck in the current but something
tells me JQuery will be relegated to the equivalent of in-house apps
on the web, small sites, resellers, etc. It's in use by big sites now
but as new "good" javascript developers come in to maintain those
sites, I believe you'll see the JQuery code removed. As one who had
to troubleshoot a hybrid JQuery, Prototype, Scriptaculous site, I can
tell you the JQuery code was the most difficult to understand and
tweak.

Of course, I could be way off but at least I have the experience not
to say "One thing is sure..."

Bob

 

[Kenny]

It is far more 'complete' and reliable than jQuery and has been since
it was posted. Far more compatible and future-proof as well. Works
with frames and XHTML too and trounces jQuery in speed tests
(especially in the quasi-standard browsers.) There's really no
comparison.

Granted, the documentation is completely lacking, but the API is very
simple and all objects can be "inspected" and traced in the debug
console on the test page. Same page is full of useful examples for
most of the modules.

I've replaced jQuery a few times with code from my builder. It's
amazing how much faster and concise the projects became. And if
anything ever goes wrong, the owner can talk to the person who wrote
every line of code (me), rather than some forum full of neophytes who
have never even *seen* the code.

You'd really have to be out of your mind to use jQuery (search the
archives for more info.)

Two questions.

#1. Elsewhere I saw a mention that Amazon is using jQuery. They may well
be crazy and I am sure I am a pinhead, but...are you saying Amazon's
site does not work? Are you making more money in a year than they will
in ten? Congrats again!

#2. You offer a proprietary library which jQuery undercuts. Should you
not be mentioning that every time you slam jQuery or Dojo or qooxdoo?
Usenet ideally is where geeks can go to exchange information and learn
from peers -- are you not in quite a different category, aka "vendor"?

OK, #3. So who is the shill, you or me? I make no money off qooxdoo.
Hell, qooxdoo is free: qooxdoo makes no money off qooxdoo. But you have
a commercial interest in your anti-framework FUD (even as you admit
these frameworks are supporting huge profitable sites). CMIIAW, but
aren't you the commercial marketing whore in this NG? I think we would
all like to see a "full disclosure" footnote on your posts from now on.
I'll help:

"[Full disclosure: the opinions above come from the vendor of a
proprietary library you do not need if the opinions above are just so
much bullsh*t.]"

Dude, in from the cold come, upstream swim no more, crush Resig in
googlefight, ascend to your rightful throne!

peace. out. kxo

ps. qx-based demo installed midnight without a hitch. client wants more.
The earlier reported ass-kicking by qx has been identified (for free) by
qx maintainers as an issue addressed in the next release. pok

 

[Andrea Costantini]

It is far more 'complete' and reliable than jQuery and has been since
it was posted.  Far more compatible and future-proof as well.  Works
with frames and XHTML too and trounces jQuery in speed tests
(especially in the quasi-standard browsers.)  There's really no
comparison.

Granted, the documentation is completely lacking, but the API is very
simple and all objects can be "inspected" and traced in the debug
console on the test page.  Same page is full of useful examples for
most of the modules.

I've replaced jQuery a few times with code from my builder.  It's
amazing how much faster and concise the projects became.  And if
anything ever goes wrong, the owner can talk to the person who wrote
every line of code (me), rather than some forum full of neophytes who
have never even *seen* the code.

You'd really have to be out of your mind to use jQuery (search the
archives for more info.)

Looking at your library closer, and going through the API
documentation I see that I've jumped to conclusions. The speed test
alone is an eye-opener. Your dedication to a object-detection based
framework is fantastic, and one of the main issues I've always had
with jQuery and other libraries/frameworks, despite their convenience.

That being said David, if you would just measure your words a bit more
and stop treating everyone with a differing opinion like garbage you
would inspire a lot less animosity.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know. There is a problem with predicting a sea change when
you're stuck in the current. There were people saying "Java applets
are here to stay", "VBScript is here to stay", "COM is here to stay".
Javascript libraries that manipulate the DOM are not a guarranteed
keeper. Will some people always use them? Yes, definitely but,
remember, VB's curse was that it was entirely relegated to in-house
applications. I, like you, am stuck in the current but something
tells me JQuery will be relegated to the equivalent of in-house apps
on the web, small sites, resellers, etc. It's in use by big sites now
but as new "good" javascript developers come in to maintain those
sites, I believe you'll see the JQuery code removed. As one who had
to troubleshoot a hybrid JQuery, Prototype, Scriptaculous site, I can
tell you the JQuery code was the most difficult to understand and
tweak.

Of course, I could be way off but at least I have the experience not
to say "One thing is sure..."

Wise words. Popularity/econiche domination comes and gos. But there are
trends and metatrends: the trend towards libraries might live on even if
every library extant dies off.

4GLs were positioned too high in the off-the-shelf game: if I wanted
something a little different than they offered I now had more work to do
than had I just used COBOL and FMS. But once we moved into the world of
memory-mapped displays and mouses and GUIs libraries became desirable
lest we all have to reinvent the scroll bar (which I have done in OpenGL
and believe me it is a PITA, a solid three-day weekend). Anyway, sure,
all today's frameworks may be gone in ten years, but we won'be
programming directly in HTML/CSS/JS either. Better libraries with less
lock-in and as much power will have risen to the top.

my2.kxo

 

[David Mark]

Looking at your library closer, and going through the API
documentation I see that I've jumped to conclusions. The speed test
alone is an eye-opener. Your dedication to a object-detection based
framework is fantastic, and one of the main issues I've always had
with jQuery and other libraries/frameworks, despite their convenience.

Thanks for the kind words. I don't think GP browser scripting
libraries are the best way to go, but if you *must*, you could do a
lot worse than mine (e.g. jQuery.)

That being said David, if you would just measure your words a bit more
and stop treating everyone with a differing opinion like garbage you
would inspire a lot less animosity.

Did I treat you like garbage?

 

[David Mark]

Two questions.

Okay. If it is only two.

#1. Elsewhere I saw a mention that Amazon is using jQuery. They may well
Yes.

be crazy and I am sure I am a pinhead, but...are you saying Amazon's

They are crazy and you are a pinhead. Yes.

site does not work? Are you making more money in a year than they will

Define "work." And your comparison is ridiculous? Compare what they
make to what they *could* make if they were competent to develop an e-
commerce site. Same for that ridiculous snowboard site you mentioned.

in ten? Congrats again!

#2. You offer a proprietary library which jQuery undercuts. Should you

Undercuts how? You can't just download my code and use it for
anything without my permission. But neither is there an advertised
price. If Amazon wanted to use it, I would charge them a fortune; but
if it were a small commercial concern, it is unlikely I would charge
anything. We've been over this.

not be mentioning that every time you slam jQuery or Dojo or qooxdoo?

Why would I mention that? I am not selling my library in here.
Matter of fact, I've never advertised it all and have made it quite
clear that I don't think GP libraries (including mine) are a good idea
for most projects. Of course, I can use it because I can trim out
anything extraneous to a particular context. Don't try that at home.

Usenet ideally is where geeks can go to exchange information and learn
from peers -- are you not in quite a different category, aka "vendor"?

See above.

OK, #3. So who is the shill, you or me? I make no money off qooxdoo.

You.

[snip]

 

[Noway]

I told you to search the archives. It's a *proven* fact that jQuery
is junk and John Resig has learned nothing from the experience.

The proven fact is that few members of this group behave aggressively
and irrational when confronted with different opinions.

 

[Noway]

I don't know. There is a problem with predicting a sea change when
you're stuck in the current. There were people saying "Java applets
are here to stay", "VBScript is here to stay", "COM is here to stay".

There are some significant differences with mentioned technologies. They
were never broadly accepted and were forced by companies which made
them. A lot of hype at the beginning but with negative trend and
acceptance during the time.
Now look at the acceptance trend with js libs in past three years. There
is no question about should you use one of them, but which one should
you choose.

Javascript libraries that manipulate the DOM are not a guarranteed
keeper.

Perhaps they are not, but they show direction of the mainstream flow,
and will be probably replaced by something better.

Will some people always use them? Yes, definitely but,
remember, VB's curse was that it was entirely relegated to in-house
applications. I, like you, am stuck in the current but something
tells me JQuery will be relegated to the equivalent of in-house apps
on the web, small sites, resellers, etc. It's in use by big sites now
but as new "good" javascript developers come in to maintain those
sites, I believe you'll see the JQuery code removed. As one who had

Maybe, but in favor to mootools or vice versa. I'm speaking here for
what I have seen on general purpose sites in the past year or two. This
group is probably the only place which shows great deal of skepticism
toward libs future (not to mention hostility ).

Of course, I could be way off but at least I have the experience not
to say "One thing is sure..."

Look at the trends as nothing happens over night, and make distinction
between trend and hype, .. or go and ask Matt Kruse.

 

[David Mark]

There are some significant differences with mentioned technologies. They
were never broadly accepted and were forced by companies which made
them. A lot of hype at the beginning but with negative trend and
acceptance during the time.
Now look at the acceptance trend with js libs in past three years. There
is no question about should you use one of them, but which one should
you choose.


Perhaps they are not, but they show direction of the mainstream flow,
and will be probably replaced by something better.


Maybe, but in favor to mootools or vice versa. I'm speaking here for

What sort of progress would it be to gop back and forth between
similar incompetent libraries, when there are far more productive
alternatives?

what I have seen on general purpose sites in the past year or two. This

The past.

group is probably the only place which shows great deal of skepticism
toward libs future (not to mention hostility ).

No skepticism. No hostility either. It just seems like that due to
all of the inducement of unwelcome epiphanies (we cam't be *that*
ignorant can we?!)

Look at the trends as nothing happens over night, and make distinction
between trend and hype, .. or go and ask Matt Kruse.

Why ask him? And your prediction of a "MooTools for jQuery" trend
isn't happening. The stupid name alone is enough to derail that one
(as if it needed help.)

 

[Andrew Poulos]

In the "old" days there were two main types of people who could build
(simple) web pages: those that had learnt HTML; and those that could use
Dreamweaver.

It became very difficult to get a job building web pages, once employers
understood the difference between knowing HTML and using Dreamweaver, if
you didn't know HTML. (Of course there where people who could use
Dreamweaver and did know HTML.)

Perhaps those that now depend on libraries such as prototype, jquery,
mootools, mochikit, scriptaculous... will have soon have similar
difficulties?

Andrew Poulos

 

[Kenny]

They are crazy and you are a pinhead. Yes.

Charmer!

Meanwhile, I know you are dying to learn more about JS frameworks:

http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/12/road-to-qooxdoo.html

Don't worry, no mention of the joys of this NG. I thought it was going
to come up, but it did not. Moral there somewhere.

p,k

 

[Kenny]

In the "old" days there were two main types of people who could build
(simple) web pages: those that had learnt HTML; and those that could use
Dreamweaver.

It became very difficult to get a job building web pages, once employers
understood the difference between knowing HTML and using Dreamweaver, if
you didn't know HTML. (Of course there where people who could use
Dreamweaver and did know HTML.)

Perhaps those that now depend on libraries such as prototype, jquery,
mootools, mochikit, scriptaculous... will have soon have similar
difficulties?

Yes, and someday the lameness of Windows will become apparent and the
Mac will drive it into the sea and Anna Kournikova will realize I was
the guy for her.

We Lispers know all too well how superiority and a dollar will get you a
cup of coffee:

http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html

Your premise IIUC is that Amazon soon will see the light and eliminate
the use of jQuery. I must commend you for your positive outlook on
management as contrasted with my experience thereof.

p,k