You cowboys were right

These JS frameworks are death by a thousand cuts. Dojo is 300k
compressed and I am still building. And lots of lame code out there,
they cannot even follow the simplest HIG principles.

Trying to talk the boss into letting me just do HTML/CSS/JS and start
enjoying programming again.

Thx for priming the pump, anyway.

cheers, kenny

re: You cowboys were right

Kenny wrote:Nope, qooxdoo is the answer. Hides HTML and CSS, very fast,
well-documented, adds a bit of an OO model atop JS's...overall, very
sophisticated.

hth, kenny

re: You cowboys were right

Kenny <kentilton@gmail.comwrites:
I'm looking at it, and it's pretty interesting. Not so sure about the
API or the actual implementation (need to look at both some more). It
doesn't seem THAT fast, though.

Cheers,
J.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/

re: You cowboys were right

On Nov 20, 10:37*am, Kenny <kentil...@gmail.comwrote:Then, what is the question?

re: You cowboys were right

David Mark wrote:I have graduated from asking to informing.

hth,kxo

re: You cowboys were right

On Nov 20, 5:59*pm, Kenny <kentil...@gmail.comwrote:Okay. What is the question? (Inform away.)

re: You cowboys were right

On Nov 20, 5:59*pm, Kenny <kentil...@gmail.comwrote:Never mind. I see that the question is "name another monstrous blob
of ill-advised browser scripting rubbish."

/**
* Whether the first element contains the second one
*
* Uses native non-standard contains() in Internet Explorer,
* Opera and Webkit (supported since Safari 3.0 beta)
*
* @signature function(element, target)
* @param element {Element} Parent element
* @param target {Node} Child node
* @return {Boolean}
*/
contains : qx.core.Variant.select("qx.client",
{
"webkit|mshtml|opera" : function(element, target)

So if some baseless series of characters contains these strings
(assumes some variant of Safari, IE or Opera), take this fork.

{
if (qx.dom.Node.isDocument(element))

Passing a document to this would seem a waste for most applications.
And who knows what sort of mysticism is used in this "isDocument"
method? Designs that require differentiating between host object
types are doomed to fail (see jQuery.)

{
var doc = qx.dom.Node.getDocument(target);

return element && doc == element;

} else if (qx.dom.Node.isDocument(target))
{
return false;

Waste of code.

}
else
{
return element.contains(target);

Assumes a non-standard method exists. Blows up in anything that looks
remotely like IE, Safari or Opera, but does not implement a "contains"
method on elements.

}
},

// http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs...cumentPosition
"gecko" : function(element, target) {

Sure, anything that calls itself "Gecko" must...

return !!(element.compareDocumentPosition(target) & 16);

support compareDocumentPosition!

},

[snip]

Didn't this thing die out years ago? Certainly it should have. It is
the same sort of generalized, over-the-top incompetent rubbish that
has plagued Web applications during this initial craze over Ajax.

re: You cowboys were right

David Mark meinte:
Well, you have to credit them that they created a lean 17MB(!) SDK
package... From a brief look, it seems to be a monster in the "extJS"
vein - anyway, JS now has classes. Makes you wonder what Kenny was
babbling about when he stated:

"These JS frameworks are death by a thousand cuts. Dojo is 300k
compressed and I am still building. And lots of lame code out there,
they cannot even follow the simplest HIG principles. "

But then he moved from asking nOOb questions to dishing out advice in
just 8 days.

Gregor

re: You cowboys were right

David Mark wrote:
Hey, thanks for taking a look at it, I'll keep my eyes open. Right now
my app runs on Chrome, Safari, and FireFox but not IE.

kt

re: You cowboys were right

On Nov 21, 4:10*am, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.atwrote:It makes you wonder why people would set out to write these bloated
general-purpose "frameworks" when they are so obviously ill-suited for
browser scripting. Though, it is no wonder that the average Web
developer who wants an "Ajax site" sees them as gold.
No telling.
That's what happens. Download a lousy script, try it in a handful of
browsers, talk to previously indoctrinated ignoramuses, conclude that
this is how browser scripting is done and embark on a career as an
"Ajax expert" with [fill in the framework name] experience. It can be
quite lucrative due to ignorance at the management level and the
constant maintenance that is required to keep one of their "solutions"
working in three browsers.

re: You cowboys were right

Joost Diepenmaat wrote:I'll keep you posted. It just seems a lot zippier on handling a grid
than I experienced under Dojo or YUI or jQuery.

Right now I am trying to figure out why AllegroServe cannot keep web
sessions straight in anything other than FFox (after doing fine a couple
of hours ago <sigh>).

It does mean writing JS where jquery and Dojo supported the declarative
markup model better, I plan eventually to have the declarative thing
going on the Lisp side so its kinda better (but less portable to other
frameworks) to leave the whacky world of html/css behind.

Meanwhile I see these hardcores here want me doing html and css -- I bet
they were the last to let go of assembler, too.

:)

kt

re: You cowboys were right

Gregor Kofler wrote:Working out pretty well, too, for what classes do best: divide up huge
wodges of code and even maybe make reuse a little easier.
qooxdoo Just Works. If I work for two hours I produce two hours of
application. It has been a while since I experienced that playing with
dojo and yui.
I gotta confess, a build of my qooxdoo app is now bigger than that!
I am talking about click vs shift-click vs control-click -- the simplest
thing in the world and qooxdoo is the first I have seen that got it right.
I been at this a while, I know quality when I see it. Little things like
the build process, the runtime errors (amazing detail), the slick layout
(nothing else comes close -- well, I did not try them all).

And I like to shoot from the hip. :)

I will come back and confess if it does not work out for us.

cheers, ken

re: You cowboys were right

On Nov 21, 8:28*pm, Kenny <kentil...@gmail.comwrote:

[snip]
That makes no sense. Poorly written "framework" scripts are hardly a
substitute for HTML and CSS.
You still don't get it. People who actually write browser scripts
accumulate repositories of re-usable code. That's what they use to
build Web applications. Those who do not, download other people's
repositories and pray that the authors knew what they were doing (and
will always be there to help them.) The impetus to stick with them is
so strong (anything to remain blissfully ignorant to the rigors of
browser scripting) that some communities "flourish" even after their
leaders have been exposed as clueless windbags (e.g. John Resig.)
Good luck with that. See you back here in a few months with lots of
impossibly complex problems.