Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > Javascript Library

Reply
Thread Tools

Javascript Library

 
 
dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2008
On Dec 6 2007, 9:34*am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 11:55 am, Matt Kruse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 10:39 am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> ironically, you took many of my arguments against jQuery


I would have liked to have seen more discussion for detecting support
for computedStyles; the bug John mentioned.

When adding a hack for something like getComputedStyle, it would be
good style to add a comment:

if( cantGetComputedStyle( element ) {
// XXX: Safari 2 returns null when element has display: none;
...
// XXX: Safari 3 returns empty strings for getPropertyValue...
}
@John
<snip>
> Considering that IE is going to be backwards compatible for, most
> likely, many many years to come, I'm not worried. When the year 2031
> arrives, jQuery can, and will adapt.
>


Providing a case where the code expects a browser to have incorrect
behavior makes it hard for that browser to change. It also makes the
code require more frequent maintenance for user-agents that change. IE
needs a reason to change; a failure case. Chris Wilson talks about
this. Microsoft can't break the web by neglecting current sites.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2008
On Dec 6 2007, 9:34*am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 11:55 am, Matt Kruse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 10:39 am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> you took many of my arguments against jQuery


I would have liked to have seen more discussion (did I miss it?) about
getComputedStyle feature detection.

Capability-detecting failure of getPropertyValue chould be addressed,
and this should definitely be in a comment if it is done:

if( !document_implementation_hasFeature_CSS ) {
// XXX: Safari 2 returns null for getComputedStyle when element has
display: none;
...
// XXX: Safari 3 returns "" for getPropertyValue when element has
display: none;
}

XXX comments are informative and the code begs to be removed
obscenities.

An approach might be to try and set some value (like voiceFamily, or
even something completely bogus, like computedStyleWorkaroundTest:
true; ). Use insertRule and then read it back.

The thread kind of fell apart, but had a lot of good stuff early on.

@John <snip>
> Considering that IE is going to be backwards compatible for, most
> likely, many many years to come, I'm not worried. When the year 2031
> arrives, jQuery can, and will adapt.
>


Providing a case where the code expects a browser to have incorrect
behavior makes it hard for that browser to change. (it also makes the
code require more frequent maintenance for user-agents that change).
IE needs a reason to change; a failure case. Chris Wilson talks about
this. Microsoft can't break the web by neglecting current sites.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2008
On Dec 6 2007, 4:15*pm, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 1:29 pm, Matt Kruse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 11:34 am, David Mark <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > The only experience you should need to know that there are major
> > > problems with jQuery is to look at its code. *Much of it forked based
> > > on a meaningless value, which its author thinks indicates MSIE.

>
> > Which doesn't necessarily correspond to problems in use or
> > maintenance, which you are claiming.

>
> Of course it does. *All of its browser sniffing does. *Where have you
> been for the last ten years? *You claim to have spent at least some of
> that time scripting browsers. *Have you learned anything from the
> experience?
>
>
>
> > Where is your personal experience or anecdotes from others that show
> > what a maintenance hell jQuery is? Oh, wait, you have none? Because
> > it's all speculation, and you're crossing your fingers just hoping
> > that something bad does indeed happen. I'm sure it bothers you that

>
> I couldn't care less what happenes with jQuery or any other library,
> unless it happens to be running the current page in my browser.
>
> > you have no real cases where the use of jQuery has caused lots of
> > problems, but you can find _many_ real cases where it has provided a

>
> Go read your own re-hashing of my arguments in the jQuery developer
> group as you have apparently forgotten everything you said.
>
> > lot of value to a lot of different people. Including small mom-and-pop
> > operations like Google.

>
> How many times are you going to use Google as an example? *Everybody
> knows they employ some of the worst Web developers in history. *The
> quality of their JavaScript is notoriously bad. *What makes you think
> they make good decisions in that area?
>
>
>
> > > Ironically, you took many of my arguments against jQuery
> > > and ran with them, resulting in recent patches.

>
> > I'm not aware of the patches, but I did look over the code that you
> > critiqued and offered my own version of it. There were obviously some
> > similarities in our criticisms, and most of your criticisms were

>
> That's an odd way to put it. *You took what I posted and ran with it.
> By your own admission, you were happily using this library for however
> long, completely oblivious to its time bombs. *You likely would have
> continued using it until one day, Firefox or Opera or one of the other
> two browsers the stupid thing supports updated and broke some or all
> of your applications.
>
> > obviously very valid. Good job. I agree with much of your technical
> > analysis of javascript, but I disagree with many of your conclusions.
> > I'm fine with that.

>
> You just seem to struggling to accept the conclusions as they
> invalidate many of your own mistaken beliefs. *Some fragment of your
> personality gets it, else you wouldn't have argued tirelessly to have
> various bits of browser sniffing (among other things) removed from
> jQuery. *BTW, you have a long way to go if you really want to salvage
> that derelict. *Good luck.
>
>
>
> > > The contrast between your arguments here and
> > > your input to the jQuery developers would seem to indicate a split
> > > personality.

>
> > Not at all. I still use jQuery and I find it extremely valuable in the
> > cases where I use it. It needs to improve, especially if I am to use
> > it on public sites. I am confident that it will improve over time and

>
> But you and others like you are constantly recommending it to people
> who build public sites. *Do you not see why that is inappropriate?
> That's one of my biggest complaints about the jQuery muppets. *They
> argue that they designed something for three browsers and don't care
> about the others, but fail to understand that such a design falls way
> short of what a public Website requires, recommending their
> monstrosity to anybody and everybody, with an almost religious zeal.
>
> > come closer to the standard I think it can reach. I have no plans to
> > abandon it.

>
> Great.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Static library Vs. Dynamic library iceColdFire C++ 3 05-17-2005 06:16 AM
Dynamic Library or Static Library under Linux gouqizi.lvcha@gmail.com C++ 6 05-10-2005 03:16 PM
Re: Difference between Web Control Library and Class Library Alan Ferrandiz [MCT] ASP .Net 0 09-11-2004 01:51 PM
Re: Difference between Web Control Library and Class Library Mythran ASP .Net 0 08-24-2004 05:53 PM
Library in library... Sweep C++ 1 12-09-2003 04:12 AM



Advertisments