Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

List.js

listjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: List.js

#71

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

thegorgon wrote: post #63
oinksoft wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you would, but not everybody is using or likes jQuery. A standalone script such as this one is far more valuable.

Not everyone does, but it is used by over 49% of the 10,000 most visited websites making it the most popular JavaScript library in use today. I'm not saying a standalone is invaluable, but if you're bragging about how it's only 7k, shouldn't there also be a 5k version for people already using the most popular JavaScript library in use today? http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/jQuery http://w3techs.com/technologie…

I might be wrong but I believe some parts of the JS community resent jQuery's ubiquity (which has arguably reached the point where people think jQuery is javascript).

That people are now taking the time to create pure JS solutions is nothing but a good thing, and there's certainly no reason why people should have to depend on a third party library if they don't want to.

Finally, your latter point about filesize is a false economy, because a 5k version still requires a 30kb DOM abstraction as a dependency. And since the thing has no external dependencies, why on earth would you want to hobble it with one it doesn't even need?

All these pure JS scripts and utilities get a nice new home in my bookmarks bar, because they're a lot more valuable to me than a shoddy jQuery plugin.

Re: List.js

#72

Post by Groxx »

Why do so many JS mini-libraries expect an ID or a CSS selector? Why not accept an element too, which lets you augment anything? Seriously, you're just crippling your library, and adding complexity by not accepting elements.

Re: List.js

#73

Post by jashkenas »

rgarcia wrote: post #47

I'd like to see something like this for Backbone collections, e.g. it would take a query on model attributes and generate a subset of the original collection. Then any views (not just lists) tied to this subset would update automatically. In fact I think with _.fiter() you could probably do this in a few lines.

Voila.

    collection.each(function(model) { 
      model.set({visible: matchesSearch(model)});
    });
And then, in your view:

    model.bind("change:visible", function() {
      $(this.el).toggle(model.get("visible"));
    });
... assuming that you have a "matchesSearch" function that can tell you if a given model matches the current search term.

Re: List.js

#74

Post by thegorgon »

FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #71
thegorgon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone does, but it is used by over 49% of the 10,000 most visited websites making it the most popular JavaScript library in use today. I'm not saying a standalone is invaluable, but if you're bragging about how it's only 7k, shouldn't there also be a 5k version for people already using the most popular JavaScript library in use today? http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/jQuery http://w3techs.com/technologie…

I might be wrong but I believe some parts of the JS community resent jQuery's ubiquity (which has arguably reached the point where people think jQuery is javascript). That people are now taking the time to create pure JS solutions is nothing but a good thing, and there's certainly no reason why people should have to depend on a third party library if they don't want to. Finally, your latter point about filesize is a…

If you use 1 JS script on your site, i'll agree. What happens when you include 3 of these though? 10? 15? Suddenly you have tons of duplicate code, trying to implement getAttribute across browsers...wouldn't it be better if they all used the same DOM abstraction library...if only something like that existed...

Re: List.js

#76

Post by peterhajas »

Thank you for licensing this - when I checked earlier, it was "I'll figure it out", but thank you for putting it under an open source license.

Nice stuff!

Re: List.js

#77

Post by ra »

cletus wrote: post #52

One note--and this applies to every Javascript plugin or library: Your examples need to be online. Without exception. As soon as I have to download and run local examples, honestly I just completely lose interest. That may seem impatient, a snap judgment, arbitrary and irrational. It is in fact all of these but it doesn't matter. There's no reason you can't have your demos online. It makes it super easy for anyone to…

There is an example on the home page.

Re: List.js

#78

Post by [deleted] »

aboodman wrote: post #31

Put a working example or at least a screenshot on that first page. I don't have time to download a zip file and blah blah blah to see what you made. Make it easy.

[deleted]

Re: List.js

#80

Post by aboodman »

pbreit wrote: post #32
aboodman wrote: post #31

Put a working example or at least a screenshot on that first page. I don't have time to download a zip file and blah blah blah to see what you made. Make it easy.

The list above the code is a working example of the code.

The example (and code) are below the fold on a 1440 laptop. I didn't even realize they were there.

That is absolutely the most important thing for a library. First page, right after the name. A functional example of what it does.

That huge logo on the homepage is pointless. Replace it with a nice lickable demo (you can move the logo to the header or something), and the page will be twice as effective.

Just my .02.

Once I got to look at the actual example, it looks good :).

Post reply on HN