Re: Is jQuery worth a second look?

On Sep 30, 5:45 pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
kangax wrote:
Garrett,
their trunk is using `instanceof` [1]. Wrapping a single
operator into a method seems like an overkill, but... whatever
works for them. We, in prototype.js, are more inclined to get
rid of is* methods at all. Having such "helpers" seems to solve
very few (if any) problems.

Keeping isFunction is understandable for backwards
compatibility. However, they don't need to keep using
isFunction internally for that.

Because of the ill-advised use of emulated method overloading in
JQuery (which is so fundamental to the design at the lowest level that
it is a mistake that can never be fixed) it will remain necessary to
make the sort of type distinctions that the - isFunction - function
was intended for. Even if some alternative is used internally the
faults and shortcomings of existing/previous - isFunction - efforts
will still live on under the hood.

Of course it won't work across frames.

The rest of JQuery does not work across frames (just look at all of
those unqualified - document - references) so - isFunction - not
working across frames is not actually making things worse than they
would be otherwise.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is jQuery worth a second look?
    ... a reasonable choice for those who want to use a full-featured, ... my experience with JQuery is ... and dismissing all JQuery related questions in this ... isFunction - still uses function decompilation. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Is jQuery worth a second look?
    ... a reasonable choice for those who want to use a full-featured, ... my experience with JQuery is ... and dismissing all JQuery related questions in this ... Kangax posted on es-discuss that that was changed but I still see the isFunction in the latest 1.2.6. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)