I would like to share a "AJAX Framework" that I discovered today while reading a national newspaper. It´s open source and it was created by some guys from my university (but I don`t know them!).
I looked at it and besides the fact that I got some JS errors while browsing (with FF 1.5) I think this is not really an 'Ajax Framework'. It seems to be more like a XLS parser that tries to extend HTML via Javascript (using ajax of course). To me this ignores the nature of the web. All code resulting from using this will be broken when the user has JS disabled (their homepage sure is), most likely be unsemantic / inaccessible, and worst of all highly CPU hungry. Besides that the entire thing seems to be pretty verbose, and I dislike things that require me to type a lot (if it doesn't improve readability or has other benefits).
Ok, I really don't want to bash your local fellows, they've probably spent a lot of their time on this. But as a true jQuery evangelist (it's my second religion after CakePHP), I have to post this little link for you so you can make up your mind for yourself:
emiliano wrote: > I would like to share a "AJAX Framework" that I discovered today while > reading a national newspaper. It´s open source and it was created by > some guys from my university (but I don`t know them!).
Felix, thanks for the reply. As I`m not a AJAX guy (almost neither a PHP coder), I thought it could be a good thing to share what an argentinian newspaper show today in their pages (not many bakers read argentinian newspapers).
I will follow your advice and learn JQuery.
Emiliano
On 11 dic, 17:50, Felix Geisendörfer <haimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I looked at it and besides the fact that I got some JS errors while > browsing (with FF 1.5) I think this is not really an 'Ajax Framework'. > It seems to be more like a XLS parser that tries to extend HTML via > Javascript (using ajax of course). To me this ignores the nature of the > web. All code resulting from using this will be broken when the user has > JS disabled (their homepage sure is), most likely be unsemantic / > inaccessible, and worst of all highly CPU hungry. Besides that the > entire thing seems to be pretty verbose, and I dislike things that > require me to type a lot (if it doesn't improve readability or has other > benefits).
> Ok, I really don't want to bash your local fellows, they've probably > spent a lot of their time on this. But as a true jQuery evangelist (it's > my second religion after CakePHP), I have to post this little link for > you so you can make up your mind for yourself:
> emiliano wrote: > > I would like to share a "AJAX Framework" that I discovered today while > > reading a national newspaper. It´s open source and it was created by > > some guys from my university (but I don`t know them!).
yeah I certainly don't read any Argentinian news papers. Heck I rarely read the German ones either. But that's because the major media outlets these days are either dull and don't question the things they talk about, or are so full of [...] that it'd be a waste of time to read them as well ; ). Anyway even so that might just have been a bad preparation to my next sentence: I'm always interested in trying out and reading about new technologies. There is a lot of good stuff out there that has yet to get the audience it deserves and I'd be a shame for it to loose momentum because of a lag of international marketing.
But in this case my advise for you to go with jQuery stays, I think it's really the best option out there right now ; ).
emiliano wrote: > Felix, thanks for the reply. As I`m not a AJAX guy (almost neither a > PHP coder), I thought it could be a good thing to share what an > argentinian newspaper show today in their pages (not many bakers read > argentinian newspapers).
> I will follow your advice and learn JQuery.
> Emiliano
> On 11 dic, 17:50, Felix Geisendörfer <haimu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi emiliano,
>> I looked at it and besides the fact that I got some JS errors while >> browsing (with FF 1.5) I think this is not really an 'Ajax Framework'. >> It seems to be more like a XLS parser that tries to extend HTML via >> Javascript (using ajax of course). To me this ignores the nature of the >> web. All code resulting from using this will be broken when the user has >> JS disabled (their homepage sure is), most likely be unsemantic / >> inaccessible, and worst of all highly CPU hungry. Besides that the >> entire thing seems to be pretty verbose, and I dislike things that >> require me to type a lot (if it doesn't improve readability or has other >> benefits).
>> Ok, I really don't want to bash your local fellows, they've probably >> spent a lot of their time on this. But as a true jQuery evangelist (it's >> my second religion after CakePHP), I have to post this little link for >> you so you can make up your mind for yourself:
>>> I would like to share a "AJAX Framework" that I discovered today while >>> reading a national newspaper. It´s open source and it was created by >>> some guys from my university (but I don`t know them!).
> JQuery looks good (powerful). I have not come across it before, so am > on the learning curve. Do you use it instead of Scriptaculous and > Prototype?
Oh definitely! I've not touched Prototype/Scriptaculous since somebody mentioned jQuery to me. There is nothing wrong with them, and both of those libraries have brought a lot of good things to the universe, but jQuery is a couple steps above on the evolutionary ladder of JS code.
My own experience was that when I first converted one of my projects from prototype to jQuery, I instantly cut my current JS code in half. This was before I really knew most of what jQuery could do. Now the JS code of this project is probably 1/4th or 1/5th of it's original size.
Or to express it with the a quote from a recent discussion on the jQuery mailing list:
Dave Methvin wrote: > > "You start with 10 lines of jQuery that would have been 20 lines of > > tedious DOM Javascript. By the time you are done it's down to two or > > three lines and it couldn't get any shorter unless it read your mind."
Using jQuery has had a hugely positive effect on my JS coding. But more then that, it actually changed my attitude towards the language itself. Before jQuery I thought Javascript was doomed to produce ugly spaghetti code, and even the cool ajax stuff wouldn't change that. Well now I actually really started to like the language and have learned a lot more about it and it's been great fun.
Anyway, I just noticed that I sound like one of those technology evangelists who spent more time talking about the technology they love then actually using it. So please go ahead and give jQuery a try, you won't regret it ; ).
> JQuery looks good (powerful). I have not come across it before, so am > on the learning curve. Do you use it instead of Scriptaculous and > Prototype?
> Using jQuery has had a hugely positive effect on my JS coding. But more > then that, it actually changed my attitude towards the language itself. > Before jQuery I thought Javascript was doomed to produce ugly spaghetti > code, and even the cool ajax stuff wouldn't change that. Well now I actually > really started to like the language and have learned a lot more about it and > it's been great fun.
Amen to that, brother. I've been using jQuery for all my latest Ajax-related needs and like the small footprint it offers as well. The compact version of jQuery is under 19K in size. I used it to do some neat effects on a pop-under ad for our forum sites at work (it's known as a 'catfish').
Smaller and simpler is better in this case. I wish someone would hurry up with jQuery helpers for Cake (I know, I know, I had talked about it in the past but my spare time isn't so spare any more).
-- Chris Hartjes
"The greatest inefficiencies come from solving problems you will never have." -- Rasmus Lerdorf
On Dec 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Felix Geisendörfer wrote:
> Hi Langdon,
>> JQuery looks good (powerful). I have not come across it before, >> so am >> on the learning curve. Do you use it instead of Scriptaculous and >> Prototype? > Oh definitely! I've not touched Prototype/Scriptaculous since > somebody mentioned jQuery to me. There is nothing wrong with them, > and both of those libraries have brought a lot of good things to > the universe, but jQuery is a couple steps above on the > evolutionary ladder of JS code.
How so? I've heard good news about jQuery, but why do people like it better (besides footprint)?
> My own experience was that when I first converted one of my > projects from prototype to jQuery, I instantly cut my current JS > code in half. This was before I really knew most of what jQuery > could do. Now the JS code of this project is probably 1/4th or > 1/5th of it's original size.
Maybe that's just lines. The main thing I don't like about JQuery is ThatMany.linesOfCode(endup).lookingLikeA(TrainWreck);
> Or to express it with the a quote from a recent discussion on the > jQuery mailing list: > Dave Methvin wrote: >> > "You start with 10 lines of jQuery that would have been 20 lines of >> > tedious DOM Javascript. By the time you are done it's down to >> two or >> > three lines and it couldn't get any shorter unless it read your >> mind."
I that's partly due to the train-wrecked-ness of the library. Prototype isn't overly verbose - most calls to that (or scriptaculous) are one liners in my experience. Sure there's times when you want to chain things or queue events...
Well, there's that, and Prototype usage isn't much like vanilla DOM scripting.
> Using jQuery has had a hugely positive effect on my JS coding. But > more then that, it actually changed my attitude towards the > language itself. Before jQuery I thought Javascript was doomed to > produce ugly spaghetti code, and even the cool ajax stuff wouldn't > change that. Well now I actually really started to like the > language and have learned a lot more about it and it's been great fun.
Thanks Felix, I do love finding someone passionate about something :-)
I have found a few plug-ins in JQuery that could be immediately useful to me (like table sorting, tabs, and menus to name a few). The basic functionality looks good too.
The next question is: have you put together any Cake Helpers for JQuery? Or do you just code it straight in your pages?
Regards, Langdon
Felix Geisendörfer wrote: > Hi Langdon,
>> JQuery looks good (powerful). I have not come across it before, so am >> on the learning curve. Do you use it instead of Scriptaculous and >> Prototype? > Oh definitely! I've not touched Prototype/Scriptaculous since somebody > mentioned jQuery to me. There is nothing wrong with them, and both of > those libraries have brought a lot of good things to the universe, but > jQuery is a couple steps above on the evolutionary ladder of JS code.
> Thanks Felix, I do love finding someone passionate about something :-)
> I have found a few plug-ins in JQuery that could be immediately useful > to me (like table sorting, tabs, and menus to name a few). The basic > functionality looks good too.
> The next question is: have you put together any Cake Helpers for JQuery? > Or do you just code it straight in your pages?
> Regards, > Langdon
> Felix Geisendörfer wrote: > > Hi Langdon,
> >> JQuery looks good (powerful). I have not come across it before, so am > >> on the learning curve. Do you use it instead of Scriptaculous and > >> Prototype? > > Oh definitely! I've not touched Prototype/Scriptaculous since somebody > > mentioned jQuery to me. There is nothing wrong with them, and both of > > those libraries have brought a lot of good things to the universe, but > > jQuery is a couple steps above on the evolutionary ladder of JS code.
