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

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: List.js

#81

Post by oinksoft »

thegorgon wrote: post #74
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Or maybe I use a different library? Maybe jQuery is not to my liking at all? The convention of writing libraries as jQuery-specific is a cancer in the community right now. Making a library specific to a particular utility should be a secondary project goal.

Re: List.js

#82

Post by Javve »

Groxx wrote: post #72

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.

Good idea! The id-parameter could absolutely be a element instead, will add that to next release.

But one point with only allowing id i.e is consistency.

Re: List.js

#83

Post by Javve »

rgarcia wrote: post #45
DanielRibeiro wrote: post #24

Looks a lot like quicksand[1] without any of the fancy effects. Or am I missing something? [1] http://razorjack.net/quicksand/

It looks like quicksand doesn't have text search, and is also about twice the size (14KB).

...and Quicksand is dependent on jQuery :)

Re: List.js

#84

Post by Javve »

tomelders wrote: post #69

perfect, and just in time. I'll be announcing my own project here on HN in a week or two, and List.js will most certainly be taking a very central role. So nice work, and thanks.

Sweet! I would love to get some feedback when you tried it out.

Re: List.js

#85

Post by cubicle67 »

atomical wrote: post #18

Is there a similar library that can be used with tables? I like the function and this looks easy to use but my site uses tables over lists.

Here's a demo of a very old version of our list http://quietcode.com/smartlist/ It's also on github but the code is so outdated it's not worth linking to. This demo has 4000 items to show its speed with medium datasets

Everything is created dynamically. The js that creates the demo is

    userList = new QCSmartList({
        dataUrl: 'users.json',
        columns: [
            {field:'email'},
            {field:'surname'},
            {field:'firstname', header:'Name'},
            {field:'points'}
        ],
        containerId: 'user-list',
        name: 'users',
        varName: 'userList'
    });
If anyone's interested I can try and get some updated code/demo up later on today (it's only morning here)

Re: List.js

#86

Post by iaskwhy »

tripzilch wrote: post #43
jqueryin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The screenshot is of an older version of HN. pg, Did the change occur as a result of showing up on Contrast Rebellion? There's a fair amount of merit to downvoted comments having their contrast lowered.

I hate that, personally. I don't always have to agree with whoever downvoted, or sometimes I'm just curious about what it said. Especially the lowest contrast, after several downvotes, that's just stupid, because it's pretty much unreadable unless you select the text. So you know there's text, but you can't really read it, then why show it at all?

I'd say is so you can quickly highlight it to read it.

Re: List.js

#89

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

thegorgon wrote: post #74
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Helping jQuery monopolise the JS space even further doesn't strike me as a good idea or beneficial to the community at large.

The main drawback is that it doesn't help people learn Javascript at all. And then it's hard to get information and help with JS because practically every result returns a jQuery plugin or something that uses jQuery. And as a result of that people think, "oh, I need jQuery installed to do some javascript on my site." And then other people complain, "this script isn't jQuery I can't-" ... oh.

Wouldn't it actually be better if JS implementations were actually standardised so its behaviour across browsers was totally predictable and reliable?

> redefines a bunch of jQuery functions

Just clocked this. jQuery redefines more than just a bunch of javascript functions as well as then redefining its own. It's a bit of a mess.

Re: List.js

#90

Post by thegorgon »

FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #89
thegorgon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Helping jQuery monopolise the JS space even further doesn't strike me as a good idea or beneficial to the community at large. The main drawback is that it doesn't help people learn Javascript at all. And then it's hard to get information and help with JS because practically every result returns a jQuery plugin or something that uses jQuery. And as a result of that people think, "oh, I need jQuery installed to do some…

I totally agree. It would be way better if JavaScript implementations were standardized.

It would also be way better for developers if all computers had infinite memory.

It's just not in the cards though.

jQuery standardizes the mess that is JavaScript implementations so that developers can worry about their application instead of the browser. I don't think you should lament jQuery for being so popular, you should lament browser manufacturers (ahem, Microsoft) and the W3C for not creating and following good JavaScript specifications.

That's like blaming Dennis Ritchie for killing the Assembly community.

Post reply on HN