71–80 of 82 posts
He (David Mark) isn't going to get much support with his attitude.
I wish that were the case, but often it seems being controversial is a more direct path to popularity than thoughtfulness is.
...Not that this should be reduced to a popularity contest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of his quotes 'Every time a new browser version is released, anything built on them has to be re-tested due to an inexplicable reliance on the user agent string'. Not really most libraries use feature testing, especially jQuery and John advocates feature testing in quite a few of his writings.
His point is more subtle - you can do browser detection based on user agent strings, feature detect, conditional script inclusion, even css hacks which set styles that can be read from javascript. His point (such that it is) is that these are all bad ideas. Instead of detecting which browser you are using based on which features you support, the script should check to see if the features it wants to use exist, and if…
However, I have a challenge for you: calculate the browser window's width in pixels, before the page is done loading, and return the correct value without doing any browser sniffing.
Enjoy. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sad that one person can destroy an entire community. But one can.
According to his LinkedIn, David Mark is now working at Sitepen, the primary contributors to Dojo. I guess he no longer believes that all JavaScript frameworks are completely idiotic...
It would be useful that instead of praising one person and denegrating another, supporters of jquery, capucinno et al addressed each of the many concerns that have been raised about those libraries in a manner that can be objectively evaluate.
It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who has already staked out an extreme position and offered little to no evidence to support that opinion. Also, it's spelled Cappuccino. And since David's superficial review contained virtually nothing of substance, there isn't much to objectively respond to. Example: > Nice markup. Yes, one file in 280 Slides (not Cappuccino) has spaces between the attribute,…
Why pull things out of context and not provide a reference to the original?
You complain about the tone of his posts (someone called it snarky) and then go on to post your own snarky comments, why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the point. Well, several points. My Library was written years ago and the idea was to support "ancient" browsers like Safari 2 as well as all future browsers. As the fairly torturous test page still works in IE8 (all modes), Safari 4 and Chrome it would seem a rousing success. In the meantime, jQuery has been virtually rewritten to get rid of the browser sniffing. Guess where they got the ideas (and figure…
Hi, welcome to HN! I sincerely hope that you will bring a different tone here than you do on comp.lang.javascript. People tend to measure the "success" of their libraries or other code based upon whether or not it accomplishes their goals. If your goal was to simply build a set of abstractions, continue support for ancient browsers, and ensure that it continues to work for future browsers, then you've accomplished it…
jQuery is _downstream_ from My Library. If you go back a couple of years in CLJ, you'll find that I'm the one who tirelessly argued with Resig and co. until they dumped UA sniffing. And yeah, they copy code and ideas from me to this day. But that is _not_ why I point out the botched implementations of those (and other) ideas. I point them out because the code is bullshit.
All of that stuff about improved development time and readability and support for whatever browsers misses the mark (no pun intended) as well.
* The others are not more readable * The others are not more advanced (despite my Write Once, Do Nothing strategy). * The others are not more compatible (not even close) * The others do not perform better * The others do not have better support (the authors are too confused about what they are writing or copying)
The only thing the others have going for them is that they actually (disingenuously) market their projects. I don't have the time or need to do so.
The library is only 330K if you select _everything_ in the builder, which is the equivalent of jQuery + 100 plug-ins. It's got easily the best Flash module, a unique audio module, "sidebar" widgets, a CSS selector query engine, animations (including DirectX), etc., etc. And it all works going back a decade or so and continues to work going forward (I rarely touch it). And contrary to the laughable comment I saw in here, it perfectly suitable for use in the "Real World". That expression is so tired (and meaningless usually) it is in a coma. I sometimes wonder if the people who write things like "Real World" and "snark" actually talk like that. :)
I don't know what you mean by "simply not notable". On technical, usability and compatibility merits, it's the most notable blob of cross-browser JS ever published. But I never really called attention to it other than as a way for others (e.g. Resig) to learn. When it came out, all of the frameworks were doing crap like this:-
if (isIE6) { } else if (isSafari || isIE8) }
...and about to collapse under the weight of all of these flaky forks. You can't maintain BS like that.
Read your history, you will get an extreme sense of Deja Vu (and perhaps a laugh or two).
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_t...
And I never said anything about Resig co-opting my "obvious unit tests". There's a lot more than tests on that page. Nor do I have to update My Library (that's the main point of feature testing).
Here's some more reading for you:-
http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-...
http://thinkweb2.com/projects/prototype/
Seriously, you just might learn something. This is why I speak loudly (and carry a big script). :) Otherwise, all of you "hackers" might have remained oblivious to the fact that jQuery, Prototype, MooTools, etc. are Z-grade scripts at best. It's not always a poor use of the language, but more often a poor grasp of cross-browser scripting techniques, which leads to endless Beta tests, wholesale substitutions, etc. It's a relatively hard way to go, despite what the commercials (blog posts) tell you. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who has already staked out an extreme position and offered little to no evidence to support that opinion. Also, it's spelled Cappuccino. And since David's superficial review contained virtually nothing of substance, there isn't much to objectively respond to. Example: > Nice markup. Yes, one file in 280 Slides (not Cappuccino) has spaces between the attribute,…
Your post reads like an attack on a person rather than anything else. I've read tons of posts by David Mark and I've found little wrong with them technically so describe his position as extreme does not mean he is automatically wrong on everything. Why pull things out of context and not provide a reference to the original? You complain about the tone of his posts (someone called it snarky) and then go on to post your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who has already staked out an extreme position and offered little to no evidence to support that opinion. Also, it's spelled Cappuccino. And since David's superficial review contained virtually nothing of substance, there isn't much to objectively respond to. Example: > Nice markup. Yes, one file in 280 Slides (not Cappuccino) has spaces between the attribute,…
Your post reads like an attack on a person rather than anything else. I've read tons of posts by David Mark and I've found little wrong with them technically so describe his position as extreme does not mean he is automatically wrong on everything. Why pull things out of context and not provide a reference to the original? You complain about the tone of his posts (someone called it snarky) and then go on to post your…
Still, I think there's a difference between responding to an unprovoked attack thread, and starting one in the first place. In any case, we'd all be better off with a little less sarcasm and a lot more substance in this discussion, and for that I apologize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your post reads like an attack on a person rather than anything else. I've read tons of posts by David Mark and I've found little wrong with them technically so describe his position as extreme does not mean he is automatically wrong on everything. Why pull things out of context and not provide a reference to the original? You complain about the tone of his posts (someone called it snarky) and then go on to post your…
The original was referenced above, an additional reference didn't seem necessary. I don't believe the quotes are out of context, that was the majority of his post. Just so you don't have to search for it, here is the link: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/1799...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original was referenced above, an additional reference didn't seem necessary. I don't believe the quotes are out of context, that was the majority of his post. Just so you don't have to search for it, here is the link: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/1799...
I put mootools and jquery through jslint.com and jslint found so many things it didn't like that I wonder if the cristicism is indeed valid. Will you now publicly lambast Douglas Crockford for daring to indirectly criticise these so-called frameworks?
It's absolutely fine to have an automated tool to enforce style guidelines. But code which disagrees with that tool isn't necessarily bad. We have published style guidelines for our project, and they differ from Doug's. Those projects may very well have their own published guidelines.
Doug has never said that code which fails JSLint is obviously retarded, or written by fools. He's never publicly insulted individuals because he didn't agree with their design decisions, or written mailing list posts saying someone has "never written a competent script in his life."
So, what's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I put mootools and jquery through jslint.com and jslint found so many things it didn't like that I wonder if the cristicism is indeed valid. Will you now publicly lambast Douglas Crockford for daring to indirectly criticise these so-called frameworks?
Doug readily admits that JSLint is opinionated. For example, it considers omitting a curly brace on a single line conditional to be an error. It considers fall through switch statements an error. It even considers differing opinions on whitespace to be an error. It's absolutely fine to have an automated tool to enforce style guidelines. But code which disagrees with that tool isn't necessarily bad. We have published…
The point being that I'm tired of reading responses that only focus on an insulting comment a poster makes in order to dismiss all valid technical criticism.