Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Javascript > jquery vs dojo vs yui etc

Reply
Thread Tools

jquery vs dojo vs yui etc

 
 
Joe Nine
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
someone suggests we use one of them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matt Kruse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On Jun 16, 1:34*pm, Joe Nine <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
> state the major flaws of these libraries?


A post like this in here is like throwing row meat into a tank of
piranhas.

Enjoy!

Matt Kruse

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Garrett Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On 6/16/2010 11:34 AM, Joe Nine wrote:
> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
> someone suggests we use one of them.


Maybe next week.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On Jun 16, 2:34*pm, Joe Nine <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
> someone suggests we use one of them.


I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
Search the archive.

In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

Reading the exchanges in their respective developer forums (or on
sites like Hacker News and Stack Overflow) is quite enlightening as
well. Seeing the "experts" (your prospective support staff) in action
should be an eye-opening experience.

In many cases, you shouldn't need to know the technical ins and outs
of what they are discussing. Just look at the quality of the
discourse (try this, try that, show me where it fails, etc.) Look at
how many questions go unresolved. Look how testy they get when told
they are wrong. Look at the aliases. Look at the (deliberately)
goofy pictures. Would you accept advice of any kind (let alone
technical guidance) from these people?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Garrett Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
>> someone suggests we use one of them.

>
> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
> Search the archive.
>
> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.
>


Pure opinion. Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
plain terrible. Easy, right?

A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
would be valuable.

The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.

The summary should be something that can be explained simply and should
be understandable by anyone. The exposition should elaborate on that.

For example:

Summary of library X:
* String methods slow
* method M doesn't work consistently in browsers
* silly and useless methods

[elaboration of each point, with examples]

[reasons the bugs can't be simply patched/design analysis]

[alternative]

[Conclusion recapping on problems an alternative.]

A couple of years back I did areview on Prototype.js:
http://dhtmlkitchen.com/?category=/J...pe-js-A-Review

In that review, I painfully showed how the library works. Something as
complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
appreciated.

Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.

I would like to see such articles. I would, but I am busy with JSON
stuff and writing a test runner. I will be publishing an article next
week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
another article.

Dojo is nearly dead, so that one is low hanging fruit. jQuery and YUI
might be good subject matter for changing the industry.

As a final emphasis, the article should emphasize what to do instead.
That is: How to analyze code quality and where to learn about web
scripting. The article should not simply turn the reader away from a one
library, only to leave him directionless or jumping to another library
(as many ex-prototype.js users switched to jQuery).

Garrett
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2010
On Jun 16, 6:53*pm, Garrett Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
> >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
> >> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
> >> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
> >> someone suggests we use one of them.

>
> > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
> > Search the archive.

>
> > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
> > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

>
> Pure opinion.


Amnesia flaring up again?

There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
(as you well know). As I said, search the archive.

> Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
> The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
> plain terrible. Easy, right?


I've done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some
of it recently.

>
> A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
> would be valuable.


It's been done to death (as you well know).

>
> The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
> that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
> provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.


That ship has sailed and long since reached its destination.

[...]

>
> A couple of years back I did areview on Prototype.js:http://dhtmlkitchen.com/?category=/J...8/06/17/&entry...


I thought that was where this was headed. Well, good for you then.
But drop the laughable, indefensible stance against what I've done
(which towers over your "achievements" in this area).

>
> In that review, I painfully showed how the library works.


Sorry to hear it was painful.

> Something as
> complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
> appreciated.


Yes. Again, done to death at this point. I mean, Prototype?! Could
there be a less relevant example at this juncture?

>
> Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.


Exactly.

>
> I would like to see such articles.


All together: Search the archive.

> I would, but I am busy with JSON
> stuff and writing a test runner.


Great.

> I will be publishing an article next
> week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
> another article.


Okay. I think you are way late on that one as well.

>
> Dojo is nearly dead, so that one is low hanging fruit.


Yes, I'd like to think I helped kill it.

> jQuery and YUI
> might be good subject matter for changing the industry.


You can't stand it, can you? I've already changed the industry.
Where were you?

>
> As a final emphasis, the article should emphasize what to do instead.


We've been over that ad nauseam as well.

> That is: How to analyze code quality and where to learn about web
> scripting.
> The article should not simply turn the reader away from a one
> library, only to leave him directionless or jumping to another library
> (as many ex-prototype.js users switched to jQuery).
>


Your hypothetical article pales in comparison to my somewhat legendary
output in this area. Best of luck with it!
 
Reply With Quote
 
RobG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On Jun 17, 8:53 am, Garrett Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
> >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
> >> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
> >> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
> >> someone suggests we use one of them.

[...]
> The summary should be something that can be explained simply and should
> be understandable by anyone. The exposition should elaborate on that.
>
> For example:
>
> Summary of library X:
> * String methods slow
> * method M doesn't work consistently in browsers
> * silly and useless methods
>
> [elaboration of each point, with examples]
>
> [reasons the bugs can't be simply patched/design analysis]
>
> [alternative]
>
> [Conclusion recapping on problems an alternative.]


A discussion of the library architecture and usage patterns with their
pros and cons would also be helpful.


> A couple of years back I did areview on Prototype.js:http://dhtmlkitchen.com/?category=/J...8/06/17/&entry...
>
> In that review, I painfully showed how the library works. Something as
> complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
> appreciated.


I'm sure it took quite a bit of time, it would be good to update it.
There does not seem to be mention of the version reviewed (June 2008
=> v 1.6.0.2?).

The section $a toString gave me a bit of a revelation: browser
detection based on the rendering engine ignores differences in the
script engine. There are a number of browser families based on WebKit,
there are two main script engines - Chrome, Maxthon and Android use V8
whereas KDE and Safari use SquirrelFish. There may be others.


> Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.


Would somebody please tell Apple that? Their main web site uses
version 1.6.0.2


[...]
> Dojo is nearly dead, so that one is low hanging fruit. jQuery and YUI
> might be good subject matter for changing the industry.


It should also look at massive frameworks like Qooxdoo, Cappuccino
("...an open source framework that makes it easy to build desktop-
caliber applications that run in a web browser"[1]) and SproutCore
("... an HTML5 application framework for building responsive, desktop-
caliber apps in any modern web browser..."[2]).

1. <URL: http://cappuccino.org/ >
2. <URL: http://www.sproutcore.com/what-is-sproutcore/ >


> As a final emphasis, the article should emphasize what to do instead.


Yes, such as: let the browser do as much work natively as possible,
keep it simple and use scripting only where necessary to add value
(i.e. the antithesis of Qooxdoo, Cappuccino and SproutCore which aim
to completely replace the browser's UI).


--
Rob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
David Mark wrote:

> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>> > On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
>> >> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using
>> >> any of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just
>> >> want a few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire
>> >> back when someone suggests we use one of them.
>> >
>> > I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
>> > Search the archive.
>> >
>> > In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
>> > botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

>> Pure opinion.

>
> Amnesia flaring up again?
>
> There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
> (as you well know). As I said, search the archive.


Search it yourself. I must agree that the problem with what is in "the
archive" is that it is unstructured, not to the point, full of useless
sentiments, and on top of it widely unreadable thanks to sloppy formatting
(on your part, despite several requests to do better), if it is available
at all (you know about Google Groups' search flaws, don't you?). It is
unfortunately impractical to find the pearls in the mud that have been
thrown. So much for amnesia.

Therefore, I, too, would welcome an unbiased, unemotional, and theoretically
sound peer review. In fact, not having observed it to date, I have been
considering to try and write one myself when and if I find the time.
Perhaps this is such consuming a task that it requires a step-by-step
approach to be done properly.


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$(E-Mail Removed)>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Garrett Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On 6/16/2010 4:06 PM, David Mark wrote:
> On Jun 16, 6:53 pm, Garrett Smith<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 2:35 PM, David Mark wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
>>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
>>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
>>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

>>


Of course, so when somebody -- a recruiter, for example, says, "what's
wrong with the jQuery library?", you can say:

- Poor selector engine
- Non-descriptive method names
- Hard to debug
- long, overloaded methods with too much abstraction
- Poorly degradable
- loosely defined constructs and vague documentation
- Low-quality plugins
- Silly (and futile) things in source, like `isPlainObject`
- Significant and numerous core upgrades that break functionality
- plugins don't work
- documentation doesn't reflect new behavior

(modified list of gripes from a colleague).

>>> I've reviewed salient bits of all three in the last six months or so.
>>> Search the archive.

>>
>>> In short, jQuery is terribly inept and unneeded, YUI is terribly
>>> botched and bloated and Dojo is just plain terrible.

>>
>> Pure opinion.

>
> Amnesia flaring up again?
>
> There's a tsunami of evidence and demonstration behind my statements
> (as you well know). As I said, search the archive.
>


The OP asked for "links to very convincing articles". In your response,
I see cynical opinion and no links. That's not even a concise summary of
any one library. It sounds snide, actually. And no urls.

>> Anybody can say that about anything. Example: Disco sucks.
>> The design of the Prius is terribly botched. The US Government is just
>> plain terrible. Easy, right?

>
> I've done all of the hard work. You yourself were just parroting some
> of it recently.
>


That is untrue.

I've have never wanted to copy anything of yours.

>>
>> A no-nonsense analysis demonstrating major shortcomings is not easy, but
>> would be valuable.

>
> It's been done to death (as you well know).
>


URL?

>>
>> The article should provide a concise summary of problems, elaborate on
>> that, with examples, link to any pertinent standards, and finally,
>> provide advice on what the reader should do instead of using that.

>
> That ship has sailed and long since reached its destination.
>


If you are trying to say that an article was published then post a URL
so the OP can see it.

[...]

>> Something as
>> complicated as that should be explained, so that it can be fully
>> appreciated.

>
> Yes. Again, done to death at this point. I mean, Prototype?! Could
> there be a less relevant example at this juncture?
>


One point to be gleaned from that is what sort of change it can affect.
A subtler point is that the mistake I made was not emphasizing enough
about what to do instead. Look how many switched to jQuery.

The review also shows an example outline of how to do a review. It
starts at a very high level with technical *facts*.

| A code review should be objective and should state actual problems.
| Saying "the code is bad" is not a helpful review. Instead, explain
| the problem clearly. If the problem is severe, then say why.

<http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/review/>

I've emphasized these points many times regarding your reviews and I've
noticed improvement, but I think it can still get better.

People will respect you if you follow that.

>>
>> Prototype.js has mostly died out since then.

>
> Exactly.
>


And even a Prototype core developer criticizing Prototype:
http://perfectionkills.com/whats-wro...nding-the-dom/

Now more and more are flocking to jQuery. Great. Well, not really.

[...]

>
>> I will be publishing an article next
>> week related to the W3C Selectors library, too. I don't have time for
>> another article.

>
> Okay. I think you are way late on that one as well.
>


Opinions are funny things. Everybody's got one.

My observations are that many developers are unaware of how selectors work.

I've notice that some foster beliefs that the jQuery "bare words"
proprietary selector syntax is designed to work match attributes instead
of properties. In contrast, the source code of jQuery indicates that it
was designed to select properties.

Further evidence indicates that there may be uncertainty as to whether
or not the jQuery author(s) know what it was designed to do or knew that
it was invalid CSS selector syntax. The documentation says it selects
attributes, the website says it is css3 compliant. Blog entries seem to
be vague and contradictory.

My observation is that developers are confused as to how selectors
really work.

>
> Your hypothetical article pales in comparison to my somewhat legendary
> output in this area. Best of luck with it!


Then post a link to what you feel are your best ones. Let them speak for
themselves and quit boasting about them.

Look:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=jquery+%22code+review%22>

I don't see any jQuery code reviews. Chances are, the OP doesn't either.

I've found:
http://www.doxdesk.com/#u20091116-jquery

- which is funny, but not a serious code review (the author is
knowledgeable and provides humorous insight. He seems to not take jQuery
seriously).

My opinion is that jQuery is taken seriously by so many that it cannot
be just laughed off and it cannot be just called garbage. In order to
effect a change, one must take it head on in a more formal code review.

Talk to the reader as if he's right in front of you; don't insult his
intelligence and don't assume he understands everything you do. Be
concise. Make it understandable at a high level to anyone. Try to see it
from the perspective of the user who llikes it. Try to see it from the
perspective of the author who wrote it and is now stuck with design
decisions -- what can he do? Are they fixable? If so, how? If not, why
not? Parsing selectors - sounds neat, right? Well, the problems with
that are...

[brief introduction]

[summary overview of problems]

[exposition and demonstration of each problem]

[elaboration on design issues]

[alternative]

[conclusion]

Writing something like that is not going to be easy; not something that
can be completed in under a week.

A link to such formal review of jQuery would be useful and valuable.

My prototypejs review was painful, not because I had to go and find
problems, but because I had to communicate them effectively to readers
who liked Prototype.js.

Garrett
 
Reply With Quote
 
Garrett Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2010
On 6/16/2010 5:14 PM, RobG wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:53 am, Garrett Smith<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2:34 pm, Joe Nine<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Does anyone have any links to very convincing articles that eloquently
>>>> state the major flaws of these libraries? I'm not considering using any
>>>> of them, I've heard enough here to know how bad they are. I just want a
>>>> few article links to keep in my back pocket that I can fire back when
>>>> someone suggests we use one of them.

> [...]
>> The summary should be something that can be explained simply and should
>> be understandable by anyone. The exposition should elaborate on that.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Summary of library X:
>> * String methods slow
>> * method M doesn't work consistently in browsers
>> * silly and useless methods
>>
>> [elaboration of each point, with examples]
>>
>> [reasons the bugs can't be simply patched/design analysis]
>>
>> [alternative]
>>
>> [Conclusion recapping on problems an alternative.]

>
> A discussion of the library architecture and usage patterns with their
> pros and cons would also be helpful.
>
>



[...]

> Yes, such as: let the browser do as much work natively as possible,
> keep it simple and use scripting only where necessary to add value
> (i.e. the antithesis of Qooxdoo, Cappuccino and SproutCore which aim
> to completely replace the browser's UI).


Good advice.

However, it touches on a core antipattern of Quooxdoo, Cappuccino and
SproutCore. It's not a new technique.

It would be good for the article to do one of
1) focus entirely on one library
2) focus or a problem that is solved and show how libraries solve it,
with examples from the library, and then show an alternative.
3) focus on an antipattern

I'm going to publish an article next week, after it has been reviewed
and edited (the draft is being reviewed now). The article will cover
some things here, but it is not a formal review, as I have outlined. I'd
really like to see that, and if it is a good one, probably even more
than the article I'm working on.

Garrett
 
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
Microsoft expanding it use of jQuery & involvement with jQuery lorlarz Javascript 6 03-25-2010 10:14 PM
jQuery Query about comparing jQuery references Aaron Gray Javascript 20 07-27-2008 01:53 PM
Dojo -> jQuery Christoph Boget Javascript 3 06-27-2008 06:41 PM
Does Dojo implement DOM lvl3 events, as opposed to YUI only providingwhat browser implements? david.karr Javascript 0 05-02-2008 01:06 AM
jQuery, Prototype/Script.aculo.us, YUI/Ext, Dojo, MochiKit, Zimbra, etc....help :] hedgehog Javascript 1 04-06-2007 04:01 PM



Advertisments