Comments on: Reducing the pain of adopting a JavaScript library http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joseph Morphy http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-22513 Joseph Morphy Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:43:53 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-22513 Perhaps the best JavaScript framework/library is <a href="http://prototype.conio.net" rel="nofollow">Prototype</a>. Probably its only drawback is lack of great documentation. It isn't so much of a problem anymore, though. Perhaps the best JavaScript framework/library is Prototype. Probably its only drawback is lack of great documentation. It isn’t so much of a problem anymore, though.

]]> By: David A. G. Dávila Zambrano http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-21486 David A. G. Dávila Zambrano Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:33:58 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-21486 I got your page learning about HTML because I am needing reach upgrade to my personal position. All about W3C to me is as a new horizon, when i was to school the comptutacion was not existent and Java L. Is something like the order all in this planet are nedding. G. bless all you I got your page learning about HTML because I am needing reach upgrade to my personal position.
All about W3C to me is as a new horizon, when i was to school the comptutacion was not existent and Java L.
Is something like the order all in this planet are nedding.
G. bless all you

]]> By: links for 2006-12-13 at found_drama http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-20940 links for 2006-12-13 at found_drama Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:43:47 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-20940 [...] Reducing the pain of adopting a JavaScript library via The Web Standards Project (tags: webdev javascript essay todo) [...] [...] Reducing the pain of adopting a JavaScript library via The Web Standards Project (tags: webdev javascript essay todo) [...]

]]> By: Chris Heilmann http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-20366 Chris Heilmann Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:37:08 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-20366 John Resig of jQuery has asked people <a href="http://jquery.com/blog/2006/12/13/helping-you-understand-jquery/" rel="nofollow">on the jQuery blog</a> to give examples of what tutorials are needed, and this is a great step ahead. As to the comments here, please stop advertising one or the other library and their code, this is not the point of this. Especially the last code example by jake is an exact violation of the idea that you should leave CSS to the CSS parser and you shouldn't create scripts that make functionality dependent on JavaScript. Just because you _can_ create a footer with JavaScript it doesn't make it a good idea. John Resig of jQuery has asked people on the jQuery blog to give examples of what tutorials are needed, and this is a great step ahead.

As to the comments here, please stop advertising one or the other library and their code, this is not the point of this. Especially the last code example by jake is an exact violation of the idea that you should leave CSS to the CSS parser and you shouldn’t create scripts that make functionality dependent on JavaScript. Just because you _can_ create a footer with JavaScript it doesn’t make it a good idea.

]]> By: Jake http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-20165 Jake Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:12:56 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-20165 When I went to choose a library, I downloaded some pages and the entire library. Some were horrible, full of modifications to the dom and non-valid xhtml or almost as many lines of code as the low level calls. But I kept on reading. Then I found jquery. at first look I thought 'what language is this', 'it looks like some lambda influenced language, some son of a lisp.... upon further reading, I realized it's just javascript.... and I understood most of the ways it was done. The code is brief, and the code you write is almost lyrical! Where else can I say something like this: $("#footer") .width("100%") .addDir({dir:"Pix/Friends/",width:30,randomize:true}) .addDir({dir:"Pix/HD/",width:50,randomize:true}) .addDir({dir:"Pix/Family/",width:30,randomize:true}) with one little function addDir that is only a dozen lines of code? Where else can I ask a panel of experts about the simple and mundane or the complex and intricate effects or ajax? Amazing code + amazing people = success. When I went to choose a library, I downloaded some pages and the entire library. Some were horrible, full of modifications to the dom and non-valid xhtml or almost as many lines of code as the low level calls. But I kept on reading. Then I found jquery. at first look I thought ‘what language is this’, ‘it looks like some lambda influenced language, some son of a lisp…. upon further reading, I realized it’s just javascript…. and I understood most of the ways it was done. The code is brief, and the code you write is almost lyrical!

Where else can I say something like this:

$(“#footer”)
.width(“100%”)
.addDir({dir:”Pix/Friends/”,width:30,randomize:true})
.addDir({dir:”Pix/HD/”,width:50,randomize:true})
.addDir({dir:”Pix/Family/”,width:30,randomize:true})

with one little function addDir that is only a dozen lines of code?

Where else can I ask a panel of experts about the simple and mundane or the complex and intricate effects or ajax?

Amazing code + amazing people = success.

]]> By: jQuery: Blog: » Helping you understand jQuery http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-20164 jQuery: Blog: » Helping you understand jQuery Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:12:32 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-20164 [...] Some recent articles have discussed the need for having “really good” tutorials for JavaScript libraries. [...] [...] Some recent articles have discussed the need for having “really good” tutorials for JavaScript libraries. [...]

]]> By: Solid Source http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-20153 Solid Source Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:21:35 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-20153 Having tried most of the libraries on the market, (having sometimes to switch libraries mid-project - lack of good documentation) I understand the frustrations, very well, of the time and pain it takes to find a good one, so thank you guys from bringing this to print. 6 months ago I was deep in a conversion from prototype/scriptaculous to dojo (for an enterprise app) and found myself again scratching my head at the complexities, lack of solid cross browser support, and pure bloat of dojo. Thats when I found JQuery and after all 10 libraries or variations there of I have tried I will never go back and that is simple because of what this article is addressing. JQuery has a very different approach (the result of which is an easily manipulable DOM), they have loads of documentation (gotapi, as well as existing docs: visualjquery.com, etc), the community is strong, it's lightweight, and the effects, plugins, AJAX support are second to none. Not that I want to plug one particular library but I think JQuery illustrates the solutions to the above points/problems better than the rest. Hopefully this article raises a bit of awareness to all of the soon to be lib developers out there that simply putting together another API is not what the development world needs now. Having tried most of the libraries on the market, (having sometimes to switch libraries mid-project – lack of good documentation) I understand the frustrations, very well, of the time and pain it takes to find a good one, so thank you guys from bringing this to print.

6 months ago I was deep in a conversion from prototype/scriptaculous to dojo (for an enterprise app) and found myself again scratching my head at the complexities, lack of solid cross browser support, and pure bloat of dojo. Thats when I found JQuery and after all 10 libraries or variations there of I have tried I will never go back and that is simple because of what this article is addressing. JQuery has a very different approach (the result of which is an easily manipulable DOM), they have loads of documentation (gotapi, as well as existing docs: visualjquery.com, etc), the community is strong, it’s lightweight, and the effects, plugins, AJAX support are second to none.

Not that I want to plug one particular library but I think JQuery illustrates the solutions to the above points/problems better than the rest. Hopefully this article raises a bit of awareness to all of the soon to be lib developers out there that simply putting together another API is not what the development world needs now.

]]> By: Rich Manalang http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-20033 Rich Manalang Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:31:52 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-20033 I think most js libraries fail because of sparse or lack of documentation. Documentation, for most, developers seems to be an after thought. However, there are a few libraries that have really good documentation. My favorite is jQuery (http://jquery.com). They just recently posted their API doc on http://gotapi.com. The nice thing about jQuery is that the documentation is built into the development process. You can count on new releases being documented thoroughly. I think most js libraries fail because of sparse or lack of documentation. Documentation, for most, developers seems to be an after thought. However, there are a few libraries that have really good documentation. My favorite is jQuery (http://jquery.com). They just recently posted their API doc on http://gotapi.com. The nice thing about jQuery is that the documentation is built into the development process. You can count on new releases being documented thoroughly.

]]> By: librarian http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-19991 librarian Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:57:59 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-19991 I should add that I just looked through SVN trunk for mootools as mentioned above. The download of this framework lets you select just the files you need. A step in the right direction but the string class (yes I said class - go see for yourself) contains only a couple of functions I can imagine using. The array class is more useful and the framework is interesting enough to check out. I should add that I just looked through SVN trunk for mootools as mentioned above. The download of this framework lets you select just the files you need. A step in the right direction but the string class (yes I said class – go see for yourself) contains only a couple of functions I can imagine using. The array class is more useful and the framework is interesting enough to check out.

]]> By: librarian http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/comment-page-1/#comment-19988 librarian Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:26:36 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/12/12/reducing-the-pain-of-adopting-a-javascript-library/#comment-19988 There are general problems with the idea of reusable javascript libraries; one is bloat. JS libs should ship with a preprocessor to generate include files that only contain code for the objects and functions in use. A good example of a javascript library is the google canvas lib for IE. I would hesitate to call it a library, it's more of a compatability shim and this is why js libraries are popular. Most web developers could throw a library together in a weekend, however we only want to write and debug our code once, not once for every browser. As for client side <em>javascript frameworks</em>, this a more recent and disturbing trend. Perhaps Tamarin will integrate AOT compilation with browser caching, making these things slightly less rediculous. There are general problems with the idea of reusable javascript libraries; one is bloat. JS libs should ship with a preprocessor to generate include files that only contain code for the objects and functions in use.

A good example of a javascript library is the google canvas lib for IE. I would hesitate to call it a library, it’s more of a compatability shim and this is why js libraries are popular. Most web developers could throw a library together in a weekend, however we only want to write and debug our code once, not once for every browser.

As for client side javascript frameworks, this a more recent and disturbing trend. Perhaps Tamarin will integrate AOT compilation with browser caching, making these things slightly less rediculous.

]]>