Comments on: Javascript: The Quickening http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/ I have nothing to say and I say it. Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:13:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: wioota http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/comment-page-1/#comment-1226 wioota Mon, 29 Jan 2007 05:45:14 +0000 http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/#comment-1226 I agree - for..in is risky and we don't use it in our own code (although the recent deployment did highlight a very old bit of code using it which was then refactored). I think the library which had issues was 'x' from cross-browser.com but I could be wrong. I will check with our QA team and see if I can confirm this for you. Sam's comment was actually more about the OO side of things moving to something more akin to Dean Edward's 'Base' and I guess I had assumed this might also address the Array augmentations but that was probably a misguided assumption on my part :) I am keen to have a play with the latest Prototype release supported by the new documentation site. You've inspired me to have another tinker :) I agree – for..in is risky and we don’t use it in our own code (although the recent deployment did highlight a very old bit of code using it which was then refactored). I think the library which had issues was ‘x’ from cross-browser.com but I could be wrong. I will check with our QA team and see if I can confirm this for you.

Sam’s comment was actually more about the OO side of things moving to something more akin to Dean Edward’s ‘Base’ and I guess I had assumed this might also address the Array augmentations but that was probably a misguided assumption on my part :)

I am keen to have a play with the latest Prototype release supported by the new documentation site. You’ve inspired me to have another tinker :)

]]> By: Andrew Dupont http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/comment-page-1/#comment-1225 Andrew Dupont Mon, 29 Jan 2007 05:25:01 +0000 http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/#comment-1225 I agree with your description of jQuery. Prototype and MochiKit are deliberate efforts to make JS feel more like Ruby and Python (respectively). I'm sure Dojo and YUI have some sort of guiding principles, but I'm not familiar enough with either one to know what those principles are. It is true that Prototype conflicts with <a href="http://www.andrewdupont.net/2006/05/18/javascript-associative-arrays-considered-harmful/" rel="nofollow">associative arrays</a>, but using <code>for..in</code> on an array is risky in any situation. My statement was that Prototype does not conflict with <em>other frameworks</em> — if you have code that uses <code>for..in</code> on arrays, you'd have to refactor it. But that's the <em>only</em> way in which Prototype would collide with existing code. I'm not sure which comments of Sam's you're referring to, but I don't think we're planning to remove the <code>Array.prototype</code> augmentations in version 2.0 or thereafter. I agree with your description of jQuery. Prototype and MochiKit are deliberate efforts to make JS feel more like Ruby and Python (respectively). I’m sure Dojo and YUI have some sort of guiding principles, but I’m not familiar enough with either one to know what those principles are.

It is true that Prototype conflicts with associative arrays, but using for..in on an array is risky in any situation.

My statement was that Prototype does not conflict with other frameworks — if you have code that uses for..in on arrays, you’d have to refactor it. But that’s the only way in which Prototype would collide with existing code.

I’m not sure which comments of Sam’s you’re referring to, but I don’t think we’re planning to remove the Array.prototype augmentations in version 2.0 or thereafter.

]]> By: wioota http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/comment-page-1/#comment-1202 wioota Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:42:19 +0000 http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/#comment-1202 Its been healthy and (generally) friendly. I'd be interested in seeing some attempts to define the philosophies behind each library. Jquery is excellent at keeping a smaller API footprint and this has clearly been one of their goals - even retiring methods recently in favour of more generic functions with more broad parameters in favour of more specialized method names with fewer parameters. It does however force most actions to start with an element which does make me wonder what I do when I want to use its language features outside the scope of an element. Prototype does conflict with javascript code which is reliant on 'for...in' for example and this recently required us to rollback a deployment and factor prototype out and replace it with YUI. I think that by version 2.0 most of these issues will be behind Prototype (based on recent comments by Sam Stephenson). Its been healthy and (generally) friendly. I’d be interested in seeing some attempts to define the philosophies behind each library. Jquery is excellent at keeping a smaller API footprint and this has clearly been one of their goals – even retiring methods recently in favour of more generic functions with more broad parameters in favour of more specialized method names with fewer parameters. It does however force most actions to start with an element which does make me wonder what I do when I want to use its language features outside the scope of an element.

Prototype does conflict with javascript code which is reliant on ‘for…in’ for example and this recently required us to rollback a deployment and factor prototype out and replace it with YUI. I think that by version 2.0 most of these issues will be behind Prototype (based on recent comments by Sam Stephenson).

]]> By: Andrew Dupont http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/comment-page-1/#comment-1193 Andrew Dupont Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:30:07 +0000 http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/#comment-1193 I agree that the "competition" between frameworks has accelerated innovation and made the landscape better for all. I put the word in quotation marks because I think the major frameworks compete with each other in only the loosest of senses — each one chooses a different philosophy, thereby self-selecting their user bases. As a member of Prototype Core, I feel obligated to mention our new <a href="http://prototypejs.org" rel="nofollow">web site</a>, complete with exhaustive documentation. And though I understand the viewpoint of those who prefer not to augment built-in prototypes, I should point out that I have not heard of one single instance where Prototype conflicts with another JavaScript framework. I agree that the “competition” between frameworks has accelerated innovation and made the landscape better for all. I put the word in quotation marks because I think the major frameworks compete with each other in only the loosest of senses — each one chooses a different philosophy, thereby self-selecting their user bases.

As a member of Prototype Core, I feel obligated to mention our new web site, complete with exhaustive documentation. And though I understand the viewpoint of those who prefer not to augment built-in prototypes, I should point out that I have not heard of one single instance where Prototype conflicts with another JavaScript framework.

]]> By: wioota.com » Blog Archive » Javascript barriers to rapid development http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 wioota.com » Blog Archive » Javascript barriers to rapid development Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:55:27 +0000 http://blog.wioota.com/2007/01/21/javascript-the-quickening/#comment-1189 [...] Coding Horror covers some general criticism of Javascript libraries reminiscent of a few criticsisms I eluded to in previous posts such as “Javascript: The Quickening” and “Yahoo’s YUI Drag and Drop Module”. I think it could be stretched to other languages as well however as javascript has been a focus of mine recently (and many others) I thought I would explore some frustrations with working with the YUI library (as well as some other libraries) I have had recently. [...] [...] Coding Horror covers some general criticism of Javascript libraries reminiscent of a few criticsisms I eluded to in previous posts such as “Javascript: The Quickening” and “Yahoo’s YUI Drag and Drop Module”. I think it could be stretched to other languages as well however as javascript has been a focus of mine recently (and many others) I thought I would explore some frustrations with working with the YUI library (as well as some other libraries) I have had recently. [...]

]]>