«

On Jul 28, 2:05*am, Karl Tikjøb Krukow <karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
[...]
> > "This is considered bad practice, a hack, by many.
> > * *- Unreliable
> > * *- Restricted accessibility
> > * *- Maintenance"
>
> > I don't think that "accessibility" has much direct relevance to
> > browser sniffing. It can be restricted as much without it as with it.
>
> Again, I've used an incorrect word. I mean accessibility to many user
> agents - not users. I will rephrase (though I haven't got a concise word
> now...)

The use of the term "accessibility" to mean the quality of user
interaction is a misnomer, it should never have come into popular use.
What is meant is usability: that is, how well users can use a site.
The phrase you are looking for is "restricted usability", with the
implication that it is due to dysfunctional, inoperable or unavailable
user interface features that prevent suitable access to the data.

Consider a blind user whose screen reader is befuddled by text loaded
by XHR that is positioned in an appropriate spatial location in a
page, but does not sit in a logical place in the DOM. The screen
reader may well read it out of sequence so it is heard in the wrong
context. The user has accessed the data just fine, but they have
difficulty comprehending it because of awkard or inappropriate
presentation (i.e. the interface sucks).

In another case, a user might access the correct URI but because theu
are unable to cause an appropriate event to occur (say initiate a
hover event when using a touch interface or a click if using a
keyboard) in order to make information appear on the screen, then they
have a usability issue. They may have accessed the data, or at least
the correct URI, they just can't get it to display the information.

If, on the other hand, they access the URI but their internet
connection is too slow and the page times out, they have an
accessibility issue - they can't *get* to the information (or it can't
get to them).

However, I think I'm ****ing in the wind on this one.

[...]
> > Slide img10.html
>
> > The - typeof el.childNodes // 'function' - example for Safari is
> > probably inappropriate in context as the childNodes collection can be
> > called in that environment and so is a function, making the behaviour
> > fully conforming with the ECMAScript behaviour for a native function.
>
> Ok, the IE example should suffice to prove the point.

The Safari example shows that host objects can be infuriatingly
inconsistent even in browsers that claim to be more standards
compliant than the others (it just depends on what standard you happen
to be using for which behaviour).


--
Rob

On 28/07/10 05.23, RobG wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2:05 am, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Ok, the IE example should suffice to prove the point.
>
> The Safari example shows that host objects can be infuriatingly
> inconsistent even in browsers that claim to be more standards
> compliant than the others (it just depends on what standard you happen
> to be using for which behaviour).
>
>
> --
> Rob

Agreed, there is value in known that it's not "just IE".

I'll keep the document.all Safari example.

Thanks,
Karl.

On 28/07/10 00.01, David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:46 pm, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Karl Tikjøb Krukow wrote:
>>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> The "Potential cons" list:-
>>
>>>> - Does not mention that the libraries are rarely actually cross-
>>>> browser (but merely support a limited set of brewers, so are actually
>>>> little more than an elaboration of the "both browsers" scripts from
>>>> the end of the last century).
>>
>>> Ok, I've added a bullet "Rarely supports more than a handfull of browsers"
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Trade-off: if and what library to use
>> Potential pros:
>> - Responsibility of handling most cross-browser concerns are pushed to
>> the library developers
>
> That's virtually never a pro. Experienced developers know that
> complicated, monolithic do-everything-for-everybody scripts are
> inappropriate for a language that must be downloaded, runs in a single
> thread and must face many disparate environments. It's generally
> folly to try and the inexperienced are typically the ones who do.
>
> General-purpose JS libraries and frameworks are also the most
> challenging of browser scripting projects, so combined with mostly B
> Team contributors, the results are predictably disastrous.
>
> Furthermore, none of the "majors" is capable of supporting progressive
> enhancement in any meaningful way. The calling applications have no
> idea which methods will work and which will fall on their face. This
> precludes any possibility of graceful degradation in hostile or
> limited environments.

It was written as a "potential pro"

In an ideal scenario, pushing this responsibility to an experienced
cross-browser developer would be a pro. Obviously, when it is not
handled appropriately, it becomes a con: "You may not be happy with all
the solutions that library developers have chosen, nor consistency of
all APIs".


>
> AFAIK, there is but one (comprehensive) GP library that has come close
> to delivering a truly cross-browser (and largely maintenance-free)
> experience, while supporting progressive enhancement.
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/
>
> That being said, I don't recommend telling your students to use it.
> They need to learn how to write browser scripts before they start
> trying to borrow code from others.

Yes, I mention "My Library" as a notable exception (a long with Fork and
APE, but they don't look as comprehensive nor maintained).

Hopefully, by the end of the course they will be able to comprehend why
code such as "My Library" is written as it is. Hopefully they will
understand the general principles and techniques, albeit they will not
have extensive knowledge of various bugs and quirks of particular
browsers. I won't recommend any particular library: hopefully they will
be able to make an informed decision on their own.

At least that is the goal.

>>
>> - Common utility functions and reusable components
>>
>> - One place to go for documentation, and a single community
>
> That's not necessarily a pro either. There are lots of places to go
> to find information about JS and browser scripting in general (granted
> most of them are very bad). There is but one jQuery documentation
> site.
>
> As for community. As Richard noted, the "support" communities are
> mostly the blind leading the blind.

Again, a "potential" pro. At the course, I will discuss the warning that
Richard and yourself are giving.

> Furthermore, it's not always true that there is a single point of
> contact. Many of these efforts get fragmented over the years (see
> Dojo and Ext JS), even so much as to break their Google search results
> by changing domain names (Ext JS and Dojo each did that *twice* at
> least).
>

While I agree that it is not always true, usually it is a single (or a
few) points of contact. I think I will keep this bullet.

>>
>> Potential cons:
>> - You may not be happy with all the solutions that library developers
>> have chosen, nor consistency of all APIs
>
> That's an understatement of a disclaimer.

Yes, I am deliberately not using too strong statements in this
presentation.

[snip]

>> - Browser detection requires continous maintainance/upgrades
>
> And it may well fail *today* (in environments unknown to or unobserved
> by) the developers. Furthermore, the "upgrades" invariably break
> yesterday's browsers, leading them to be lopped off the "supported"
> list. Of course, end-users don't read such lists and cannot be
> expected to upgrade their browsers in perfect step with the library
> developers.

I will include this point explicitly.

>>
>> - Monolithic/non-modular libraries will inevitably contain many features
>> that you won't use
>
> And must be "upgraded" in one go, requiring a reboot of regression
> testing. It's a nightmare in practice (again Dojo, Ext JS and the
> like are the most extreme examples).

Do you mean as opposed to a modular library where you would be able to
upgrade a particular module, keeping other modules in an older version?

That is a good point.

>>
>> - Libraries will inevitably not contain all you need.
>
> No question there. JQuery has never featured anything that I need
> (and likely never will). In fact, it could be argued that a 70K CSS
> selector query engine that disagrees with its own QSA shim is a pig in
> a poke for anybody these days. There really are no valid arguments
> for it. All I ever hear are generalizations like "I use it as a
> tool".
>
>> Extensibility is
>> useful.
>
> Extensibility for JS libraries typically involves augmenting
> "namespace" objects. You can add properties to objects in any script,
> so any script can be considered extensible in this way. Granted, some
> take it a step further with additional syntactic sugar, but rarely to
> any real positive effect. If anything, it encourages "plug-in"
> authors who really shouldn't be writing JS in the first place (let
> alone extensions for widely used libraries).
>

I guess extensibility and customization is only relevant for "widget"
libraries.

The notion of extensibility that you consider is a property of the
language itself. It is often not sufficient to be practical: I think the
widgets should be designed with the mindset that the user should be able
to easily change certain properties, provided that they still satisfy
the same contract of the widget API.

But I guess it is really just a question of how well-designed it is: if
well designed, extensibility and customization will probably follow.

>> Advice on libraries
>>
>> * Consider your context
>> - General web vs. intranet.
>> - Accessibility requirements?
>> - Constrained devices? Unknown devices?
>> - App-in-a-page or hyper-text document? In between?
>>
>> * Be aware of the costs and benefits of using a particular library or not
>> - Make an informed decision
>> - Don't include a library “by default”
>> - If you choose to use one, consider which one to use based on
>> context: Don't decide by “what is hot” or “what I know”
>>
>
> Those are good points, but you need more.

Would you mind helping me with what additional points I need? (unless
you mean the points discussed in the present post).

Thanks for taking the time.
Karl.

On 28/07/10 00.01, David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:46 pm, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Karl Tikjøb Krukow wrote:
[snip]
>> - Libraries will inevitably not contain all you need.
>
> No question there. JQuery has never featured anything that I need
> (and likely never will). In fact, it could be argued that a 70K CSS
> selector query engine that disagrees with its own QSA shim is a pig in
> a poke for anybody these days. There really are no valid arguments
> for it. All I ever hear are generalizations like "I use it as a
> tool".
>

OT: Well, you need jQuery to add numbers

http://www.doxdesk.com/img/updates/2...6-so-large.gif



Karl.

On Jul 28, 1:10*am, Karl Tikjøb Krukow <karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/07/10 00.01, David Mark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2:46 pm, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> *wrote:
> >> Karl Tikjøb Krukow wrote:
> >>> Richard Cornford wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>>> The "Potential cons" list:-
>
> >>>> - Does not mention that the libraries are rarely actually cross-
> >>>> browser (but merely support a limited set of brewers, so are actually
> >>>> little more than an elaboration of the "both browsers" scripts from
> >>>> the end of the last century).
>
> >>> Ok, I've added a bullet "Rarely supports more than a handfull of browsers"
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> Trade-off: if and what library to use
> >> Potential pros:
> >> - Responsibility of handling most cross-browser concerns are pushed to
> >> the library developers
>
> > That's virtually never a pro. *Experienced developers know that
> > complicated, monolithic do-everything-for-everybody scripts are
> > inappropriate for a language that must be downloaded, runs in a single
> > thread and must face many disparate environments. *It's generally
> > folly to try and the inexperienced are typically the ones who do.
>
> > General-purpose JS libraries and frameworks are also the most
> > challenging of browser scripting projects, so combined with mostly B
> > Team contributors, the results are predictably disastrous.
>
> > Furthermore, none of the "majors" is capable of supporting progressive
> > enhancement in any meaningful way. *The calling applications have no
> > idea which methods will work and which will fall on their face. *This
> > precludes any possibility of graceful degradation in hostile or
> > limited environments.
>
> It was written as a "potential pro"

Fair enough.

>
> In an ideal scenario, pushing this responsibility to an experienced
> cross-browser developer would be a pro.

Absolutely, but as Richard mentioned, the "majors" are not cross-
browser in any sense of the term. I'd be careful with the term "pro"
as well. Just because somebody somewhere may have paid for the
services of a library author, doesn't make them proficient (only
professional).

> Obviously, when it is not
> handled appropriately, it becomes a con:

And, the sad story is that it has not been handled appropriately by
the "pros" on the other end as they haven't really done what they set
out to do.

"You may not be happy with all
> the solutions that library developers have chosen, nor consistency of
> all APIs".

True enough. Of course, they may not be experienced enough to make
wise judgements in such matters. In other words, they may be happy as
clams with something like jQuery and not realize that they are
standing on the shoulders of midgets.

>
>
>
> > AFAIK, there is but one (comprehensive) GP library that has come close
> > to delivering a truly cross-browser (and largely maintenance-free)
> > experience, while supporting progressive enhancement.
>
> >http://www.cinsoft.net/
>
> > That being said, I don't recommend telling your students to use it.
> > They need to learn how to write browser scripts before they start
> > trying to borrow code from others.
>
> Yes, I mention "My Library" as a notable exception (a long with Fork and
> APE, but they don't look as comprehensive nor maintained).

Yes, I think Fork "died" years ago (though may well still work as it
is a cross-browser script). APE has never amounted to much AFAIK.

>
> Hopefully, by the end of the course they will be able to comprehend why
> code such as "My Library" is written as it is.

That would be helpful.

> Hopefully they will
> understand the general principles and techniques, albeit they will not
> have extensive knowledge of various bugs and quirks of particular
> browsers.

Here's the most important point: it doesn't require vast knowledge of
browser quirks to be successful. After all, how could I have known
what IE8 or IE9 would look like back in 2007?

It's about understanding the underlying abstractions, proper feature
detection and testing patterns and solving problems. Memorization (or
prognostication) rarely enter into it.

Granted, when attempting to solve every problem related to browser
scripting for everybody, there will be times when observation of
quirks is required. But it is what you do with those observations is
what determines how far you will go in this business.

> I won't recommend any particular library: hopefully they will
> be able to make an informed decision on their own.

Be sure to mention the possibility of *not* using a GP library.
That's also an important concept (and is not tantamount to "writing
everything from scratch").

>
> At least that is the goal.

Hey, I salute you for your efforts. The world needs more competent JS
developers. It starts with the kids.

>
>
>
> >> - Common utility functions and reusable components
>
> >> - One place to go for documentation, and a single community
>
> > That's not necessarily a pro either. *There are lots of places to go
> > to find information about JS and browser scripting in general (granted
> > most of them are very bad). *There is but one jQuery documentation
> > site.
>
> > As for community. *As Richard noted, the "support" communities are
> > mostly the blind leading the blind.
>
> Again, a "potential" pro. At the course, I will discuss the warning that
> Richard and yourself are giving.

Good deal.

>
> > Furthermore, it's not always true that there is a single point of
> > contact. *Many of these efforts get fragmented over the years (see
> > Dojo and Ext JS), even so much as to break their Google search results
> > by changing domain names (Ext JS and Dojo each did that *twice* at
> > least).
>
> While I agree that it is not always true, usually it is a single (or a
> few) points of contact. I think I will keep this bullet.

Yes, but more importantly, who are they contacting? Programmers or
pattern arrangers?

>
>
>
> >> Potential cons:
> >> - You may not be happy with all the solutions that library developers
> >> have chosen, nor consistency of all APIs
>
> > That's an understatement of a disclaimer.
>
> Yes, I am deliberately not using too strong statements in this
> presentation.

Fair enough.

>
> [snip]
>
> >> - Browser detection requires continous maintainance/upgrades
>
> > And it may well fail *today* (in environments unknown to or unobserved
> > by) the developers. *Furthermore, the "upgrades" invariably break
> > yesterday's browsers, leading them to be lopped off the "supported"
> > list. *Of course, end-users don't read such lists and cannot be
> > expected to upgrade their browsers in perfect step with the library
> > developers.
>
> I will include this point explicitly.

Glad to hear it.

>
>
>
> >> - Monolithic/non-modular libraries will inevitably contain many features
> >> that you won't use
>
> > And must be "upgraded" in one go, requiring a reboot of regression
> > testing. *It's a nightmare in practice (again Dojo, Ext JS and the
> > like are the most extreme examples).
>
> Do you mean as opposed to a modular library where you would be able to
> upgrade a particular module, keeping other modules in an older version?
>
> That is a good point.

Yes. And it is important to realize that they all claim to be
modular, but (particularly in the case of Dojo and Ext JS) it's
usually all smoke due to interdependencies. For example, Dojo's XHR
module requires its (highly dubious) query module. What does XHR have
to do with CSS selector queries?

>
>
>
>
>
> >> - Libraries will inevitably not contain all you need.
>
> > No question there. *JQuery has never featured anything that I need
> > (and likely never will). *In fact, it could be argued that a 70K CSS
> > selector query engine that disagrees with its own QSA shim is a pig in
> > a poke for anybody these days. *There really are no valid arguments
> > for it. *All I ever hear are generalizations like "I use it as a
> > tool".
>
> >> Extensibility is
> >> useful.
>
> > Extensibility for JS libraries typically involves augmenting
> > "namespace" objects. *You can add properties to objects in any script,
> > so any script can be considered extensible in this way. *Granted, some
> > take it a step further with additional syntactic sugar, but rarely to
> > any real positive effect. *If anything, it encourages "plug-in"
> > authors who really shouldn't be writing JS in the first place (let
> > alone extensions for widely used libraries).
>
> I guess extensibility and customization is only relevant for "widget"
> libraries.

Yes, it's more relevant for those. And note that the "widget"
frameworks are often castles built on top of swamps. In other words,
they are the results of developers getting way ahead of themselves. I
can't name one such framework that is not completely execrable. Dojo,
YUI, Ext JS, Cappuccino, SproutCore, qooxdoo, etc. are all ill-advised
and unsuccessful attempts to make every control look the same in every
browser and chop off the browser's built-in layout mechanisms to be
replaced slowly and painfully with single-threaded scripts that fail
miserably (when compared with what they sought to replace) even in
their "supported" browsers. See Richard's comments about qooxdoo's
layout and widget scripts in a recent thread.

>
> The notion of extensibility that you consider is a property of the
> language itself. It is often not sufficient to be practical: I think the
> widgets should be designed with the mindset that the user should be able
> to easily change certain properties, provided that they still satisfy
> the same contract of the widget API.

Certainly. Unfortunately, the majors all go way too far with this,
often requiring a half-dozen levels of inheritance and tons of nested
DIV's to create the simplest of controls. As a result, they are slow,
bloated and inaccessible in numerous ways (when compared with what
they sought to replace) And whenever HTML5 finally gets here (and is
widely implemented), all of that crap will end up on history's scrap
heap anyway.

>
> But I guess it is really just a question of how well-designed it is: if
> well designed, extensibility and customization will probably follow.

Well, even a poor design can allow for massive customization.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> Advice on libraries
>
> >> * Consider your context
> >> * * *- General web vs. intranet.
> >> * * *- Accessibility requirements?
> >> * * *- Constrained devices? Unknown devices?
> >> * * *- App-in-a-page or hyper-text document? In between?
>
> >> * Be aware of the costs and benefits of using a particular library or not
> >> * * *- Make an informed decision
> >> * * *- Don't include a library “by default”
> >> * * *- If you choose to use one, consider which one to use basedon
> >> context: Don't decide by “what is hot” or “what I know”
>
> > Those are good points, but you need more.
>
> Would you mind helping me with what additional points I need?

I wouldn't mind at all. Perhaps tomorrow.

(unless you mean the points discussed in the present post).

I mean those, but certainly there are more.

On Jul 28, 1:39*am, Karl Tikjøb Krukow <karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/07/10 00.01, David Mark wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 2:46 pm, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> *wrote:
> >> Karl Tikjøb Krukow wrote:
> [snip]
> >> - Libraries will inevitably not contain all you need.
>
> > No question there. *JQuery has never featured anything that I need
> > (and likely never will). *In fact, it could be argued that a 70K CSS
> > selector query engine that disagrees with its own QSA shim is a pig in
> > a poke for anybody these days. *There really are no valid arguments
> > for it. *All I ever hear are generalizations like "I use it as a
> > tool".
>
> OT: Well, you need jQuery to add numbers
>
> http://www.doxdesk.com/img/updates/2...6-so-large.gif
>
>
>

Good one, Karl.

On Jul 27, 9:59*am, Karl Tikjøb Krukow <karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Additional questions on attribution:
>
> - Did Cornford or Crockford invent the module pattern?

I used to doubt it before, but when you dig into the c.l.js. archive
starting @ the beginning of 2003 you see that he's been -certainly- a
pioneer of that pattern. He posted quite often and a bunch of
variations on the topic, and it's obvious that he had the feeling and
excitement of whom is inventing/discovering something different, like
a new and unknown piece of JS programming.
--
Jorge.

On 28/07/10 07.59, David Mark wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:10 am, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28/07/10 00.01, David Mark wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 2:46 pm, Karl Tikjøb Krukow<karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> In an ideal scenario, pushing this responsibility to an experienced
>> cross-browser developer would be a pro.
>
> Absolutely, but as Richard mentioned, the "majors" are not cross-
> browser in any sense of the term. I'd be careful with the term "pro"
> as well. Just because somebody somewhere may have paid for the
> services of a library author, doesn't make them proficient (only
> professional).

Oh, I didn't mean "pro" as in professional, I meant as "a point in favor
of"

Anyway, I agree.

>> Obviously, when it is not
>> handled appropriately, it becomes a con:
>
> And, the sad story is that it has not been handled appropriately by
> the "pros" on the other end as they haven't really done what they set
> out to do.
>
> "You may not be happy with all
>> the solutions that library developers have chosen, nor consistency of
>> all APIs".
>
> True enough. Of course, they may not be experienced enough to make
> wise judgements in such matters. In other words, they may be happy as
> clams with something like jQuery and not realize that they are
> standing on the shoulders of midgets.

Yes, in this case, the problem is hard. Hopefully with the course they
will get at least some degree of knowledge and experience.

>>
>>
>>> AFAIK, there is but one (comprehensive) GP library that has come close
>>> to delivering a truly cross-browser (and largely maintenance-free)
>>> experience, while supporting progressive enhancement.
>>
>>> http://www.cinsoft.net/
>>
>>> That being said, I don't recommend telling your students to use it.
>>> They need to learn how to write browser scripts before they start
>>> trying to borrow code from others.
>>
>> Yes, I mention "My Library" as a notable exception (a long with Fork and
>> APE, but they don't look as comprehensive nor maintained).
>
> Yes, I think Fork "died" years ago (though may well still work as it
> is a cross-browser script). APE has never amounted to much AFAIK.

At least http://forkjavascript.org/ still "works"


>>
>> Hopefully, by the end of the course they will be able to comprehend why
>> code such as "My Library" is written as it is.
>
> That would be helpful.
>
>> Hopefully they will
>> understand the general principles and techniques, albeit they will not
>> have extensive knowledge of various bugs and quirks of particular
>> browsers.
>
> Here's the most important point: it doesn't require vast knowledge of
> browser quirks to be successful. After all, how could I have known
> what IE8 or IE9 would look like back in 2007?
>
> It's about understanding the underlying abstractions, proper feature
> detection and testing patterns and solving problems. Memorization (or
> prognostication) rarely enter into it.
>
> Granted, when attempting to solve every problem related to browser
> scripting for everybody, there will be times when observation of
> quirks is required. But it is what you do with those observations is
> what determines how far you will go in this business.
>
>> I won't recommend any particular library: hopefully they will
>> be able to make an informed decision on their own.
>
> Be sure to mention the possibility of *not* using a GP library.
> That's also an important concept (and is not tantamount to "writing
> everything from scratch").

Yes, this is will be an important point. The problem is that getting a
GP library is easy, dropping it in your page is easy; not doing that
takes more work (either you do write part of it from scratch, or you
find a number of good reusable modules suitable for your context).

And, getting a number of reusable modules for the particular context
isn't that easy - i.e. there is no good-reusable-js-modules.org.

More often than not most people go for the "easy" solution. The problem
being that it appears to work on all the browsers you have installed
(yes, in their default configuration .

Another point is that of widgets: with a GP library there is always the
chance that it comes with (almost) just that widget you want, or someone
has written that widget as a "plugin". Again it appears to work just
fine (in all the browsers you have installed, yes, in their default
configuration) - you may not consider "accessibility" (or usability, Rob
, use of keyboard.

In this case, the alternative often is writing it from scratch...
Still looking for quality-js-widgets.org

Anyway, I want to convey the message that using a GP library is not an
automatic default: it comes with a cost. Sometimes that cost is too high.

>
>>
>> At least that is the goal.
>
> Hey, I salute you for your efforts. The world needs more competent JS
> developers. It starts with the kids.
>

Thanks At least this should not be "the blind leading the blind", as
you say.

I may not see all that well, but at least I can steer away from the abyss...

[snip]
>>> Furthermore, it's not always true that there is a single point of
>>> contact. Many of these efforts get fragmented over the years (see
>>> Dojo and Ext JS), even so much as to break their Google search results
>>> by changing domain names (Ext JS and Dojo each did that *twice* at
>>> least).
>>
>> While I agree that it is not always true, usually it is a single (or a
>> few) points of contact. I think I will keep this bullet.
>
> Yes, but more importantly, who are they contacting? Programmers or
> pattern arrangers?
>

Yes, that is important.
[snip]

>>>> - Monolithic/non-modular libraries will inevitably contain many features
>>>> that you won't use
>>
>>> And must be "upgraded" in one go, requiring a reboot of regression
>>> testing. It's a nightmare in practice (again Dojo, Ext JS and the
>>> like are the most extreme examples).
>>
>> Do you mean as opposed to a modular library where you would be able to
>> upgrade a particular module, keeping other modules in an older version?
>>
>> That is a good point.
>
> Yes. And it is important to realize that they all claim to be
> modular, but (particularly in the case of Dojo and Ext JS) it's
> usually all smoke due to interdependencies. For example, Dojo's XHR
> module requires its (highly dubious) query module. What does XHR have
> to do with CSS selector queries?

Yes, part of the course is actually teaching the client the basics of
Ext JS which is used to build "app-in-a-page" things on their intranet
(where they use only IE7+ and FF3+ on windows).

I tried to use the Ext JS "builder" to create a version of the library
that only included the parts we were using: it included almost
everything so much for modularity...
[snip]
>> I guess extensibility and customization is only relevant for "widget"
>> libraries.
>
> Yes, it's more relevant for those. And note that the "widget"
> frameworks are often castles built on top of swamps. In other words,
> they are the results of developers getting way ahead of themselves. I
> can't name one such framework that is not completely execrable. Dojo,
> YUI, Ext JS, Cappuccino, SproutCore, qooxdoo, etc. are all ill-advised
> and unsuccessful attempts to make every control look the same in every
> browser and chop off the browser's built-in layout mechanisms to be
> replaced slowly and painfully with single-threaded scripts that fail
> miserably (when compared with what they sought to replace) even in
> their "supported" browsers.

But I still have hopes that it will be possible to build those castles
on a better foundation, some day. The client wants castles in browsers.

> See Richard's comments about qooxdoo's
> layout and widget scripts in a recent thread.
>

I will.

>>
>> The notion of extensibility that you consider is a property of the
>> language itself. It is often not sufficient to be practical: I think the
>> widgets should be designed with the mindset that the user should be able
>> to easily change certain properties, provided that they still satisfy
>> the same contract of the widget API.
>
> Certainly. Unfortunately, the majors all go way too far with this,
> often requiring a half-dozen levels of inheritance and tons of nested
> DIV's to create the simplest of controls. As a result, they are slow,
> bloated and inaccessible in numerous ways (when compared with what
> they sought to replace) And whenever HTML5 finally gets here (and is
> widely implemented), all of that crap will end up on history's scrap
> heap anyway.
>

You are speaking about Ext JS again, aren't you?

Yes, HTML5 would remove the need for many, but probably not all, of
those "widgets". And I guess canvas would help too.

>>
>> But I guess it is really just a question of how well-designed it is: if
>> well designed, extensibility and customization will probably follow.
>
> Well, even a poor design can allow for massive customization.

Yes, I meant the other implication: a good design would imply at least
some degree of customization.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Advice on libraries
>>
>>>> * Consider your context
>>>> - General web vs. intranet.
>>>> - Accessibility requirements?
>>>> - Constrained devices? Unknown devices?
>>>> - App-in-a-page or hyper-text document? In between?
>>
>>>> * Be aware of the costs and benefits of using a particular library or not
>>>> - Make an informed decision
>>>> - Don't include a library “by default”
>>>> - If you choose to use one, consider which one to use based on
>>>> context: Don't decide by “what is hot” or “what I know”
>>
>>> Those are good points, but you need more.
>>
>> Would you mind helping me with what additional points I need?
>
> I wouldn't mind at all. Perhaps tomorrow.

Thanks. Looking forward to it.

Karl.

On 27/07/10 09.59, Karl Tikjøb Krukow wrote:
> I am preparing an introductory course on JavaScript for the place I work
> at. As part of the course, I would like present some of the common
> knowledge and generally accepted advice of this group, since it is not
> commonly known and it should guide them in the right direction.
>
> (A small) part of this is on general purpose libraries. I've exported
> the slides as a set of html documents which can be found here:
>
> <http://higher-order.net/courses/05-js-libraries.html>
>
> I would appreciate feedback from the group. Remember that this is an
> introductory course to it should be kept to basics and generally
> accepted statements.
>

I've had so much interesting feedback that I've chosen to publish also
the slides on the "basic language constructs" hoping for interest and
advice.

<http://higher-order.net/courses/02/02_basic_language_constructs.html>


Karl.

On 29/07/10 07.04, Karl Tikjøb Krukow wrote:
[snip]

> I've had so much interesting feedback that I've chosen to publish
> also the slides on the "basic language constructs" hoping for
> interest and advice.

OT: do you see my lines wrapping at 72 chars? I've just upgraded to the
newest thunderbird (from the 2.x branch to 3.x) and it seems to have
dropped support for wrapping lines

Karl.