Doesn't Chrome have builtin support for Greasemonkey scripts? How is this better? Is it just the convenience of having jQuery preloaded?
Dotjs — hack the web
31–40 of 66 posts
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Ruby is the language the developer uses when doing something basic like this?
Python usually, as far as I can tell. Either language is fine, I just think these things should be done in something that comes pre-installed on more systems.
Feel free to fork the project and make it Python-based. defunkt works at Github and does most of his work in Ruby from what I can see.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Ruby is the language the developer uses when doing something basic like this?
Python usually, as far as I can tell. Either language is fine, I just think these things should be done in something that comes pre-installed on more systems.
I mean, I knew Chris years ago and his language of choice was Ruby, and I don't think it's changed.
Sure basic install-ability is great, but I bet you this tool was made to satiate an itch he had, and he used the tools he's used to. Little apps like these aren't engineered. Just hacks, for hacks sake.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#34This just made my day, keep up the good work.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#35This seems like it's a lot of overhead for what amounts, in terms of capability, to a reimplementation of greasemonkey. It also makes you implement finer controls on execution by url yourself, whereas greasemonkey has them in its syntax. The author states, "GreaseMonkey user scripts are great, but you need to publish them somewhere and re-publish after making modifications. With dotjs, just add or edit files in ~/.js…
That's all true, but dotjs is only for Google Chrome on OS X. Google Chrome on OS X has no such filesystem-based model for managing scripts.
True, and this is why I love dotjs. Thanks for making it!
Maybe a good followup project would be to use some of the dotjs code to help make a filesystem-based GreaseMonkey system for Chrome, which would be just as easy to manage as dotjs scripts are.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#36This seems like it's a lot of overhead for what amounts, in terms of capability, to a reimplementation of greasemonkey. It also makes you implement finer controls on execution by url yourself, whereas greasemonkey has them in its syntax. The author states, "GreaseMonkey user scripts are great, but you need to publish them somewhere and re-publish after making modifications. With dotjs, just add or edit files in ~/.js…
Yeah, already have greasemonkey and the only thing I have to do to "publish" files is to save them with the same name.
This project is a lot of work for zero benefit.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#37This seems like it's a lot of overhead for what amounts, in terms of capability, to a reimplementation of greasemonkey. It also makes you implement finer controls on execution by url yourself, whereas greasemonkey has them in its syntax. The author states, "GreaseMonkey user scripts are great, but you need to publish them somewhere and re-publish after making modifications. With dotjs, just add or edit files in ~/.js…
That's all true, but dotjs is only for Google Chrome on OS X. Google Chrome on OS X has no such filesystem-based model for managing scripts.
So actually it's much worse than Greasemonkey.
Also, with GM you can just save the script with the same filename and it'll use that instead.
This project is 100% useless.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#38Requires Ruby? Why...
Chrome extensions can't access the local filesystem so we have to start a tiny webserver in the background. If someone knows a way around this limitation, or a simpler webserver to require / embed, I would be thrilled. But so far this is the best I've found.
ahahahahah what? Dude, do you work for Microsoft? "Well see, we just have to run MS-SQL server (DESKTOP OMG EXPRESS ENGINE) here, and then we run IIS on top of it to serve this file listing..."
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all true, but dotjs is only for Google Chrome on OS X. Google Chrome on OS X has no such filesystem-based model for managing scripts.
So actually it's much worse than Greasemonkey. Also, with GM you can just save the script with the same filename and it'll use that instead. This project is 100% useless.
Unless you don't use Firefox and you tend to have a lot of dot files that you hack around with in your home directory. Then it starts to seem pretty awesome.
Re: Dotjs — hack the web
#40Umm.. is there a way to run it on windows :( ?