Why should I eschew prototype.js?

I've recently begun playing with prototype.js as well as
scriptaculous, and found both very helpful in developing web pages
with lots of pop. Modal boxes, SlideUp/Down, calendars, etc.

I've also recently ramped up my lurking and participation in this
newsgroup. There are some who advocate using prototype, and others who
are adamantly opposed to it. Are there any concrete reasons why I
should NOT use it? Is it inefficient? It seems that today's computers
have sufficient processing power to overcome most slowly implemented
solutions in javascript. And the benefits of being able to inject such
a wide variety of effects into a page (to me) far outweigh any harm.

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere meinte:Since it won't foster any understanding of proper JavaScript programming
(or even use).

You'll run into problems sooner or later (because you'll combine
prototype with mooTools and jQuery and throw in another "framework" for
good measure, and all those "frameworks" have their individual
shortcomings).
You will end up asking another one of those "my this-or-that form
element doesn't work the way I expect it, why?" questions.

And all the advice you'll get, is to look for help elsewhere.


Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere meinte:
Discussing the *use* of JS libraries is not the focus of clj.
Google might help - the problems (or - for some - the lack of these)
with these frameworks have been discussed in this NG several times.

Gregor



--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 12:37 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.atwrote:I suppose not--as i stated previously, I'm new here. However, just
because it's not the focus doesn't mean that there can't be ancillary
discussions about it.
Did so.

I had not realized prototype.js was such a hot topic, or that just by
bringing it up I might invite myself to being viewed with immediate
hostility, or, at best, a standoffish neutrality rather than with a
friendly smile and an offer of a helping hand. Still, better than what
some newbies get at c.l.perl.misc...;-)

After reviewing some threads about this subject, I discovered an
enlightening one:
http://tinyurl.com/yps5l9

Thanks.

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 1:24 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.atwrote:s/hot/hot button/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere wrote:
No, there aren't, unless you're able to write something better then
jQuery/Prototype/YUI/Mojo/whatever or you just want to have your own
library and you have enough time to do this. If you're creating webapps
with a rich UI then you definitely need a JavaScript library.
No, it's not.

--
# Regards || piotr[.]solnica[at]gmail[.]com || jid : s0lnic@jabster.pl #
# s0lnic || http://blog.solnic.in5.pl || icq : 385935391 #

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

s0lnic wrote:Almost anyone is able to write something better than those, with *maybe*
the exception of YUI.
That is an entirely different matter, of course.
But not necessarily a library written by people who don't have a clue
about what they are doing.


PointedEars, with a fitting random signature
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 2:58 pm, s0lnic <l...@my.sigwrote:Thanks Piotr. That's the second time you've helped me :-).

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere wrote:Blind leading the blind.


PointedEars
--
"Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 9:44 am, nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.comwrote:There are a few long threads (one recently) about the concept of
libraries and philosophies about how javascript should be developed.
People usually fall somewhere in the spectrum between "use a library
like prototype and do it all that way" and "never use a general-
purpose library - write your own code to meet the requirement at
hand".

Where you land depends a lot on your javascript knowledge and
experience, your goals, priorities, and context. If you are
comfortable with the idea of using a general-purpose library, then
that whole discussion can be tabled and instead you can focus on which
library you should use and how you should best use it.
Stylistic preferences would be one. I don't like its emphasis on
classes, inheritance, etc. For me, the API is too large and complex -
it tries to do more than I want it to. And I found it hard to use to
just add some quick effects or helper functions to an existing page.
I've never looked into the internals to judge it technically.
Certainly more inefficient than using core DOM functions and built-in
javascript functionality. But probably not enough to make a difference
in most cases. If you get into heavy UI stuff, general-purpose
libraries tend to slow down, in my experience.
Depends on your target audience.
Again, it comes back to your requirements and priorities. If you want
to support as many users and browsers as possible, trying to create a
slick client-side UI with lots of effects and stuff will kill some
people.

I think it's best to read the arguments on both sides to become more
informed. Then consider all the factors in front of you and come to
your own conclusion about whether a javascript library will be helpful
to you.

Matt Kruse

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 3:27 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@mattkruse.comwrote:---8<---snip--->8--

True, but you can't please all the people all the time. I'm testing
out my code in IE 6, FF 2.0, and Safari 3. That covers enough area for
me. Also, this is an internal site, so I can be reasonably sure of the
consistency and specs of the machines that will be used to view the
site.
Sage advice for any topic.
During the course of my research into the original question, your name
popped up a few times. I checked out your site, and also noticed that
the clj FAQ guy, Randy, had your Best Practices link in his sig. I
don't know too much about your credentials, but you at least seem to
try to help people rather than latch on to some trivial technicality
or misspelling or minutia and harp on it, for which you get my
respect.

I also noticed that you wrote several Google Gadgets--they look pretty
neat, although the target audience seems to be pretty advanced users
(read: hard-core geeks). By this I mean that the gadgets are very
customizable, which is a good thing, but the number of configuration
options may dissuade it's adoption by the general masses.

Anyway, thanks for your input. It was constructive.

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere meinte:
It's not a compatibility issue (at least with a decent library) -
webpages should always provide a fallback for people without JS. JS for
the eye-candy and the enhanced usability, but not for the core
functionality, but then...
....YMMV.

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Why? There are no perfect tools, I'm sure you know that. Prototype helps me
a lot in my everyday work, there are many things which bugs me, but it's
getting better and better. I don't have any serious problems with it, its
current http://www.prototypejs.org/api is very useful, its performance is
just fine, it resolves many common crossbrowser issues which every web
developer has to deal with (sooner or later). I started using Prototype
about 1.5 year ago, before that I was writing all my JavaScript without a
use of any other library and it was sometimes really painful (back then
IE5.5 had to be supported ;P). Maybe you, JavaScript masters with zillions
years of experience, have better alternatives, maybe you have written your
very own libraries, which are better then anything else - good for you
then! I wish I had enough time to do the same, but I don't and I'm using
what's available, and Prototype IS a good option, maybe other libs are
better (jQuery looks very promising), I don't know, haven't used them in
any real project yet. The fact is that I DID use Prototype and there are
MANY working applications which are based on Prototype, and you know what?
People use these apps, and they really like them, so what's the problem?
No, stop, don't answer - Prototype creators don't know what they are doing,
they know sh*t about JavaScript, this library should be destroyed.
Whatever, man.

Cheers and EOT

--
# Regards || piotr[.]solnica[at]gmail[.]com || jid : s0lnic@jabster.pl #
# s0lnic || http://blog.solnic.in5.pl || icq : 385935391 #

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 1:43 pm, nolo contendere <simon.c...@fmr.comwrote:True, but I wrote them all for my own use. My iGoogle page is heavily
customized and filled with tons of feeds and info. I make the gadgets
available to the world because I never know who might find them
useful :)

Matt Kruse

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 12, 3:50 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@mattkruse.comwrote:aahh...I thought you might be trying for the Google Gadget Venture:
http://www.google.com/gadgetventures/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere said the following on 11/12/2007 10:44 AM:What you call "lots of pop" can be very annoying to some people though.
And that has nothing to do with Prototype.js in particular. What you are
going to find in this group is that you can't get two people here to
agree on anything.
The major problem, lately, with prototype.js is people asking here "Why
doesn't it work?" and Peter Michaux has been posting the best answer to
those questions. It is no different than trying to ask in a C++ group
why a program written in C++ doesn't "work". The only difference is one
is open source and one isn't.

In contrast, if someone posts a question along the lines of "This is how
prototype.js does it, is there a better way?" (or similar) then it would
appropriate here.

Why you should, or shouldn't, use it is a decision that you have to
make. Whether it satisfies your needs or not. And, what your end goals
are. If your goal is simply to get something on the web without ever
wanting to learn more, and it satisfies your needs, then use it.
I can't, and so I won't, comment on that. I have not looked at the
prototype code in a very long time.
That is a backwards issue that has been in computing for over 30 years.
"I don't have to write efficient code because computers are fast enough
to compensate for it."

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere wrote:And therefore writing non-standard code that breaks *now* is a good thing?
That's just ridiculous.
That is what companies like Microsoft want naive people like you to believe.


PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 13, 1:31 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:Why do you infer that the non-standard code breaks now? Richard's
stance was that it DOES work, albeit coincidentally.
I don't think I'm being naive. I think hoping/expecting/suggesting
that no one use "imperfect" libraries is naive. If you disagree with
the status quo, and you know better and have the ability, make change.

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere meinte:
This very example. Richard picked an example to illustrate the bad code
quality, nothing else.
I'd say no one on clj hopes/expects/suggests that *no one* uses
imperfect libraries. However, if one is willing and able, there might be
better ways.

Anyway, since you are perfectly satisfied with prototype and can live
with it's shortcomings: use it, and end this futile discussion.

EOD, Gregor



--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

nolo contendere said the following on 11/13/2007 12:14 PM:I have been saying that in this group for years. Give up, it doesn't do
any good.

90% of the people that write Javascript don't know what ECMAScript is.
Of the remaining 10%, 90% of those don't care what ECMAScript is.
The other 1% post here proclaiming it as the savior of Javascript.

ECMAScript, in its current incarnation, was nothing more than an effort
to "standardize" what was already in place. And probably for no other
reason than to be able to say "There is a standard". And, it was a
stroke of marketing/research genius on the part of Microsoft.
It was Richard, not Robert, but, I don't think Richard was trying to
improve on Prototype.js as much as show the flaws in it. There is
another one that is, perhaps without a doubt, the mostly hotly debated
in this group and that is the use of $ as a function name. The main
issue is "ECMAScript says it is intended for machine generated code" and
people grasp onto that and want to condemn the practice simply because
"ECMAScript says so".

The $ function itself is another area where it could be improved simply
by removing some of it. It is over-written for what it is used for.
I don't think they "make" the standard as much as they "become" the
standard. Microsoft drives this market, whether people admit it or not.
It isn't a pro-MS or anti-MS sentiment, it is just a fact. If MS came
out next week and proclaimed "The only markup language we will support
in the future is MSML(Microsoft Markup Language), the only script
language we will support is MSScript (Microsoft Script), and nothing
else". Then the rest of the browser world would flip on it's head in an
effort to support them and the W3C would become a thing of the past.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/13/2007 12:31 PM:What is more ridiculous is to believe that everybody is going to write
"perfect" code. Now or ever.
Oh monkeys ass.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 13, 2:54 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:LMMAO!

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

In article <tb2dnRIadtoib6Ta4p2dnAA@giganews.com>, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome@aol.comwrote:^^^^^^^^^You misspelled "anybody". <g>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 13, 1:20 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:And also to inflate the egos of people have a good technical
understanding and want to flaunt it for all to see by criticizing
everyone they can. It's amusing to watch sometimes.

This group exists for more than to simply reduce all problems to the
most efficient and standards-compliant code that could possibly be
written. There are Javascript-related questions that are only
partially technical. For example, recent discussions on libraries
point out that people have different priorities. If someone comes here
looking for advice on the pros and cons of library X, the technical
issues with the library is only part of the equation. Even if a
library has technical problems, using it still may be the best
business decision, and that overall discussion is still Javascript-
related.

Technical perfection is not _THE_ goal, but _A_ goal.

Critiques of code and offering advice on why it is good or bad and how
it could be improved is a great thing that should always be welcome.
But not at the expense of discussing what the OP is really trying to
figure out. That's where so many regulars on this group get it wrong.
IMO.

I would still like to see answers from some of the hardcore critics
here about real-world situations and what they would recommend when
real-world problems and priorities need to be taken into
consideration. When technical merit is probably not the #1 concern,
but maybe down the list a bit. Then falling back to the same old
"libraries suck" arguments and pointing to all coding practices that
conflict with the "standards" do you no good, and many here don't seem
to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation once their mantra
is irrelevant.

Matt Kruse

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/13/2007 2:20 PM:Let me check and re-read what I wrote. Nope, I never said you stated
anything about perfect code. Nope, sure didn't. Do you see where I did?
Didn't think so. Now, who is "making things up"?
No, that is not why they exist. If understanding is increased then it is
a by-product, not the product of the group.
Your problem is you think that any code that doesn't follow some
"standard" to the letter isn't "good code". You couldn't be further from
the truth when it comes to writing cross-browser scripts for the web.
You should endeavor to understand what it is that you are whining about
before you whine about it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Randy Webb wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^As you appear to have impaired vision, I have marked it for you above.
You are.
A matter of opinion.
You are an idiot. Any code has to be written according to some convention
or it could not qualify as good code; that is, code that does not only run
in a single test environment. Adhering to the convention of a standard,
especially *the* international standard for the programming language, is
vital for it to become interoperable. Without that property, it definitely
qualifies as bad code.


PointedEars
--
"Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site. (This won't
prevent people from viewing your source, but no one will want to steal it.)"
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Randy Webb meinte:
Come on... MS isn't even able to make their IE7 the "standard" browser.
People stick rather to the wretched interface of IE6, than "learn" to
use the added comfort of alternative products.

Gregor



--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Gregor Kofler said the following on 11/14/2007 4:22 AM:If, and only if, they are made aware of the alternative product and MS
does a damn spiffy job of attempting to hide that fact. You can't get a
new Windows based PC manufacturer to pre-install a different browser
because MS won't allow it.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/15/2007 5:17 AM:Whatever you say, kiddie. It doesn't help your credibility any when you
fall prey to the "cool" stuff like referring to Microsoft as M$, it
detracts from it.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 16, 5:45 pm, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:You mean that VK needs a special profoundly thought insult, not a
simplified spontaneous one? :-)

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

VK said the following on 11/16/2007 5:47 PM:Geez, just when I thought you might be using your brain, you prove me wrong.

If telling PointedHead that he is acting like you is an insult to you,
that means he is acting worse than you. But now, I am not so sure anymore.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 17, 3:19 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH...@aol.comwrote:So is it a compliment to me? OK, but also can be read as an insult to
PointedEars (or anyone else in the future): "You are worser than VK" -
so "really ground bottom". A too complex statement for simple minds
like mine :-)

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

VK said the following on 11/17/2007 7:12 AM:Don't get your hopes up :)
You are beginning to grasp it.
I am proud of you. It only took you three posts to figure that out.
No comment :)

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

<OT>
Oh... But from the other side "there are people worser then you, VK,
so be proud of"; but from the other side "you're getting worser than
VK, PointedEars, so try to shape up"; but also can be read as ...
Did you you ever tried for a White House PR representative? You would
pass the sort out tests for sure.
:-)

</OT>

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

In comp.lang.javascript message <8db60425-1b85-42ae-8744-d522680d9b2a@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:19:49,
"dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.composted:

Lines: 253Please trim your quotes. See FAQ 2.3.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html-Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm: about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 17, 8:47 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:Some arguments in favor of a 'library' are:

1. Normalizing browser behavior, to the greatest extent possible, and
encapsulating the code required to do so into a 'standard' API
relieves the developer of the effort of considering browser quirks
every time code is to be written.

2. The code required to perform some common and repeated javascript
tasks correctly can be long and error-prone. Putting a layer over
commonly-used functionality so access to that functionality is shorter
and more concise leads to clearer code and simplifies development.

3. Not all organizations or development efforts are able to employ
javascript programmers with the level of knowledge required to write
robust, cross-browser code. Having a library of pre-written code by
someone who is much more experienced allows more inexperienced
javascript developers to perform complex tasks and develop
functionality that otherwise could not have realistically been
written.

4. A single library js file can be used on many pages throughout a web
site or webapp, and the reasonable assumption is that browsers will
cache the source. Rather than writing page-specific code (or putting
reusable functions in each page where they are required) that is
downloaded with each request, the caching of the library code can
result in faster pages.

There are caveats, of course. I don't think that using a general-
purpose library is always a good solution. Do you never believe that
it _is_ a good solution?

Under what situations do you think that using a general-purpose
library is a good choice? What kind of functionality would this
library have or not have?

Matt Kruse

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

Richard Cornford said the following on 11/24/2007 11:50 AM:And what one person finds favorable another finds objectionable and the
debate never ends.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

re: Why should I eschew prototype.js?

On Nov 24, 10:50 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:That is quite a bias to begin with. I see no reason why arguments in
favor of a library must be things that can only be achieved with a
library. Rather, a library is one way to gain the benefits that I
listed. Given a very specific context, a library may or not be the
best choice in a given situation. So I think you're starting out with
a ridiculous set of criteria with which to judge the suitability of a
'library' approach.

I think you should rather consider the possible benefits of a using a
library, then consider the cons, and decide if overall it is a good
choice. If you consider all the factors, I find it hard to believe
that you think using a library is _never_ the best choice.
Of course not, but using a library is one way to accomplish the goal.
Why so? If I have an internal webapp used by 10 people on a LAN, do
you really think that an extra 50k of js code on a page is of any
concern to to me? In some contexts, this may be a con. Not in all.
Not at all. "Standard" doesn't have to mean that it covers all cases.
Just that it is the API used regularly in most cases. A "standard" API
can put restrictions on its applicability, as well. There are plenty
of "standard" API's out there that don't handle every possible use
case.
Of course not. But it is one benefit of a library.
The lack of expertise in an area has never been much of a concern for
businesses in the past. It just means you have to be more creative in
solving the problem. If every company needed to be an expert in every
area of work they did, surely there would be few successful companies.
The fact is, sometimes you need to do the best you can with the
resources you have. To expect anything else is truly naive.
Of course not, but it is one approach.
And yet they do so, and their work is used by thousands of people on
thousands of successful web sites around the world. If they don't know
enough to write javascript, how do you account for their success?
Surely if their work was horrible it would have been exposed by now
and the free market of information would have found a better
replacement, no?
Which is part of my argument - if you include jquery.js on every page,
for example, some pages may use it heavily while others use it only
for a line or two. But once it's cached, it doesn't even matter. You
can use it for just 2 lines if you want to on a page without worrying
because it doesn't require a big additional download.
Anything. Is there any case you can dream up where you think, for
example, that using YUI or jQuery or Prototype is a good decision? Or
do you think it's always, universally a bad choice?
Why is it important to not have waste?

Matt Kruse