Re: Javascript Library
- From: David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:21:54 -0700
On Oct 31, 9:27 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:36 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Do you think you are solving extremely unique problems?Yes.
How so? You don't deal with reading/writing attributes, positioning
elements, showing/hiding objects, animating objects, ajax, etc?
Why not stop badgering me to post all of my code and make do with what
I have posted to this point?
Because you continue to say my way is stupid and your way is far
better, but you refuse to actually show your cards.
I'm calling your bluff, and you have nothing to show.
LOL. You are obviously very desperate to see my "cards." The funny
thing is that if you actually read this newsgroup (other than threads
about JavaScript libraries), you could piece together a fair amount of
my code. You want me to put it all together in a pretty package for
you. Forget it.
Isn't that the trust. In fact, it will add 50K of weight to it. As
previously noted, your packer argument doesn't hold water.
Packed, jQuery is 26k. That has nothing to do with compression or gzip
or anything. It's ~26,000 bytes of code. Plain text. Ascii. How is
that confusing?
You don't get it. Packer has everything to do with compression. And
it makes the standard GZIP compression less effective. It's stupid.
Do you use it for your scripts? Does anybody of note? It is
misleading to throw this "packed" length out there. Does a 50K
minified script download any faster if it is "packed" to 30K? Of
course not. It may in fact download slower. So it is stupid to use
it as a comparison. jQuery is 50K. Prototype is 80K. A 20K image is
20K. A 10K HTML page is 10K. HTTP and/or modems will compress these
assets during delivery, but most people (and tools) disregard that
when figuring page weights. A meaningful comparison requires all
things equal.
You are a moron. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you (or the OP) that
if you have n libraries to research and somebody pokes a hundred holes
in one of them, then your task is reduced to n - 1 libraries. You are
just upset because it happened to be the one you recommended.
I'm sure you could poke similar ridiculous "holes" in other libraries.
Ridiculous?
You're just an anti-library zealot who likes to complain about others
and yet has nothing to show for himself.
You sound desperate. Why don't you use your own "toolkit" and stop
trying to wheedle code out of me.
And on that note, I've started a discussion on the jQuery dev group
about some of the points you've made, and also some of my own
observations about the attr() function you singled out. You seem to be
unaware of some browser quirks and special cases that jQuery attempts
to address, so I wonder how well your own low-level code handles these
Wrong. Apart from library threads, do you read this group at all? I
know all too well what they were trying to do and not only did they
botch it, but their comments indicate they have no idea what they were
doing or why.
cases. In any case, I've recommended some alternate ways of coding
In other words, you took all of my suggestions and ran with them. I
am sure the jQuery group will be eternally grateful for "your"
vigilence. Now you want more help. I would give your toolkits the
treatment, but I don't specifically want to help you and I know they
have already been panned ad nauseum here.
some parts and hopefully the code will only continue to improve. Much
to your dismay, I'm sure.
Why would I care?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Javascript Library
- From: Yehuda Katz
- Re: Javascript Library
- References:
- Re: Javascript Library
- From: David Mark
- Re: Javascript Library
- From: Matt Kruse
- Re: Javascript Library
- Prev by Date: Re: problem calling function in child window
- Next by Date: Re: Javascript Library
- Previous by thread: Re: Javascript Library
- Next by thread: Re: Javascript Library
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
