Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

[Peter Michaux]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 16, 11:29 am, timothytoe <timothy...@gma il.comwrote:

I agree that browser-sniffing is about as appealing as anus-sniffing,
but programmers in the real-world sometimes need to actually get
things done. A smart programmer (as opposed to a perfection-seeking
zealot} will go with the flow and be able to throw together a website
quickly as a result. Sure, the website will be brittle, and users with
obscure browsers will whine, but that's not a bad way for programmers
to ensure future work.

Or perhaps no work at all.

Peter

[FAQEditor]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 1:23 AM:

On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, ashore <shor...@gmail. comwrote:

>Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
>someone share your views, either way?

>
<FAQENTRY>
>
Shouldn't something about Prototype be in the FAQ? It comes up very
frequently.

I have not read the rest of the thread yet, so it may be mentioned. But,
the last time an FAQ Entry was requested on Prototype, it was turned
down. If you list Prototype and the problems with it, then you need to
list YUI, Mootools, etc.. and that becomes way too intensive for the
FAQ. What could be listed is a link to this thread about Prototype and
then links to the other library threads.

All in all, I still think it is a bad idea though.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[FAQEditor]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:

<snip>

Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?

Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Peter Michaux]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 16, 10:44 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:
>
<snip>
>

Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?

>
Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

How about just a few links to some of these long Prototype threads
rather than trying to get an agreement on an actual critic?

Peter

[Randy Webb]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

timothytoe said the following on 2/16/2008 5:06 PM:

>>The contributors to this group have solid arguments why Prototype has

problems. Those would need to be pointed out or the FAQ answer would
not encapsulate the general opinions of the contributors. That is
really what the FAQ is for: to reduce typing the same thing over and
over again. If that is "biased" then the entry should be biased.
>
It would be incredibly disappointing to me if the clj FAQ Entry for
Prototype failed to condense the supreme rage that occurs when that
library is mentioned into a hellishly hot and nasty black hole of snot.

If this group decides that an entry in the FAQ should be added for
Prototype.js, then it will reflect the current thinking about
Prototype.js in this group. If the truth hurts peoples feelings, then
they need to learn to bear the pain. My personal feelings about a
subject have never entered into the way an entry is written, modified,
or removed.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[FAQEditor]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 1:57 AM:

On Feb 16, 10:44 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:
>>
><snip>
>>

>>Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?

>Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
>the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

>
How about just a few links to some of these long Prototype threads
rather than trying to get an agreement on an actual critic?

Adding an entry isn't a big deal. It just a few lines pasted into a
file. The rest is automated. As for whether it should be in there or
not, let me see if I can find the thread where it was talked about last
time.

<FAQENTRY>


What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javas cript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient
lack of quality as to make them useless in a cross-browser environment.
These are a few of the discussions that have taken place in the past
about libraries available for general public use:

Prototype.js:
<URL here>
<URL here>
<URL here>

YUI:
<URL here>
<URL here>

Mootools:
<URL here>
<URL here>

Etc..

That is a start.

I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Peter Michaux]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 1:57 AM:
>

On Feb 16, 10:44 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:

>

<snip>

>

>Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?
Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

>

How about just a few links to some of these long Prototype threads
rather than trying to get an agreement on an actual critic?

>
Adding an entry isn't a big deal. It just a few lines pasted into a
file. The rest is automated. As for whether it should be in there or
not, let me see if I can find the thread where it was talked about last
time.
>
<FAQENTRY>
>
What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?
>
The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javas cript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

"mainstream , downloadable general purpose"?

lack of quality as to make them useless in a cross-browser environment.
These are a few of the discussions that have taken place in the past
about libraries available for general public use:
>
Prototype.js:
<URL here>
<URL here>
<URL here>
>
YUI:
<URL here>
<URL here>
>
Mootools:
<URL here>
<URL here>
>
Etc..
>
That is a start.

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

Peter

[FAQEditor]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

FAQEditor said the following on 2/17/2008 2:21 AM:

As for whether it should be in there or not, let me see
if I can find the thread where it was talked about last
time.

Searching for prototype.js and FAQENTRY doesn't find the thread I am
remembering. I will try finding it tomorrow if nobody else does first.
The general idea of the thread I am hunting was that if you listed
Prototype, then you would need to list the rest and it goes to the issue
that Richard was talking about where it could become a never ending list
as more libraries come out.

What might be better, to keep the FAQ entry size down, is to simply link
to a Notes page where it can list different libraries and the
discussions here about them. That way, as libraries come out or new
threads are started about them, the FAQ doesn't grow every time a
library is discussed.


--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Randy Webb]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

<snip>

>What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?
>>
>The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javas cript hold the view
>that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

>
"mainstream , downloadable general purpose"?

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

<snip>

>
I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

>I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
>in them?

>
I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

You know me too well :)

I think that Matt's libraries should be included as well if there are
any threads where they are discussed. From what I have seen though, when
Matt finds out about a problem with one of his, he tries to correct it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Peter Michaux]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:
>

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

>
<snip>
>

What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

>

The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javas cript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

>

"mainstream , downloadable general purpose"?

>
I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

>
You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

I can find some.

I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

>

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

>
You know me too well :)
>
I think that Matt's libraries should be included as well if there are
any threads where they are discussed. From what I have seen though, when
Matt finds out about a problem with one of his, he tries to correct it.

Matt did mention in one of the recent, colossal jQuery threads that he
uses jQuery at work and doesn't have much time for his own code
anymore. I don't know if he is keeping up to date.

I don't think Matt's library should be mentioned because it is not a
frequently asked question. Also there is not a consensus that Matt's
library is bad (actually it is probably the contrary) so I wouldn't
want to imply anything about his code.

Peter

[Peter Michaux]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 16, 11:41 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:
>

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

>

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

>

<snip>

>

>What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

>

>The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javas cript hold the view
>that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

>

"mainstream , downloadable general purpose"?

>

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

>
Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.
>

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

>

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

>
I can find some.

I didn't say I was going to spend my life compiling them all.

These are ones I remember and all involve regulars and the general
opinions in the group. In some of the threads more than one library is
mentioned but I've grouped by the library that took the hardest hit.

Prototype

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/181f03af63cc81c2

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/2072e63631688fc4

jQuery

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/415949d1bcce6e6a

YUI

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/fefce445673d7135

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/37c2a1b93d566b74

Peter

[dhtml]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 16, 11:41 pm, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:
>

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

>

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <clj...@comcast .netwrote:

>

<snip>

>

>What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

>

>The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javas cript hold the view
>that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

>

"mainstream , downloadable general purpose"?

>

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

>
Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.
>

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

>

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

>
I can find some.
>

>I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
>in them?

>

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

>

You know me too well :)

>

I think that Matt's libraries should be included as well if there are
any threads where they are discussed. From what I have seen though, when
Matt finds out about a problem with one of his, he tries to correct it.

>
Matt did mention in one of the recent, colossal jQuery threads that he
uses jQuery at work and doesn't have much time for his own code
anymore. I don't know if he is keeping up to date.
>

I don't think any library should be endorsed. Or condemned. Matt's
library does not appear to be maintained.

Is there a bug count that, say, Prototype exceeds, yet Javascript
toolbox doesn't?

Which library should I use?

would be a good FAQEntry.

It could cover a range of things from: What are your needs/what are
you trying to accomplish? Or all or none of the following:

Library: jQuery :
overview: <BLAH>
pro: small, simple API
con: oversimplified; code behind methods is complicated, difficult
to test
<UNBIASED EXAMPLE>
known bugs /issues: <UNBIASED EXAMPLE>
highlights:

Then the reader can make his onw decision.

Pick Popular libraries that getasked about frequently. EXT, YUI,

I don't think Matt's library should be mentioned because it is not a
frequently asked question. Also there is not a consensus that Matt's
library is bad (actually it is probably the contrary) so I wouldn't
want to imply anything about his code.
>

Peter

[Matt Kruse]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 17, 1:41 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

Matt did mention in one of the recent, colossal jQuery threads that he
uses jQuery at work and doesn't have much time for his own code
anymore. I don't know if he is keeping up to date.

I don't read this group as intensely anymore, but I'm flattered that I
am remembered! ;) I will now proceed to wander off-topic...

I do not write much code anymore, either at home or work. You know how
it goes, all genius must happen before wife and kids, and I'm way too
late for that. I consider most of my code to be pretty solid for what
it does, and there isn't a lot of need to re-visit it. Certainly some
of it should be removed or re-written, since I now know better
practices and could create a better product. But for the most part, I
think a lot of my previous work (certainly not all of it) is still
pretty good.

I have updated some of my code recently, like the table sorting/
filtering/paging library, but I haven't put all the latest stuff out
there. I just don't have much time anymore, or to be honest, much
interest. I use jQuery quite a bit at work and for personal stuff. Not
because it's perfect, because it's certainly not, but because I know
my limited scope and requirements and the trade-off of using a single
library that does everything _I_ need correctly in the environment _I_
know I have versus writing things from scratch definitely leans in the
favor of the jQuery approach.

So lately some of my efforts have been put into writing jquery plugins
for personal/work purposes, or fixing existing plugins, or patching
jquery code to work as I would like it to.

I also spend more time working on Gadgets these days, which I find
more interesting :)

http://www.google.com/ig/authors?hl=en&author=gadget%40mattkruse.com

I don't think Matt's library should be mentioned because it is not a
frequently asked question. Also there is not a consensus that Matt's
library is bad (actually it is probably the contrary) so I wouldn't
want to imply anything about his code.

My code may be known in small circles, but nowhere close to libraries
like jquery, prototype, etc. I doubt that anyone looking for pros/cons
of "major libraries" would be looking for comments on my code.

Matt Kruse

[John G Harris]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 at 01:55:27, in comp.lang.javas cript, Richard
Cornford wrote:

<snip>

>putting
>words into other people's moths

<snip>

I like it :-)

John
--
John Harris

[timothytoe]

Re: Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, John G Harris <j...@nospam.de mon.co.ukwrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 at 01:55:27, in comp.lang.javas cript, Richard
>
Cornford wrote:
>
<snip>>puttin g

words into other people's moths

>
<snip>
>
I like it :-)
>
John
--
John Harris

Like a mouth to the flame...