prototype.js with the AJAX functionality only

[Dautkhanov]

Hello !

Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?

>70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.

I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Thanks

[Richard Cornford]

Da********@gmai l.com wrote:

Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?

70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the higher level
facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of the remaining code. This
is one of the most fundamental of the design flaws in Prototype.js, and
is so ingrained that it can never now be rectified.

Richard.

[Peter Michaux]

On Jan 30, 3:43 pm, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Dautkha...@gmai l.com wrote:

Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?

70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.

If you add a few semicolons and gzip I think the file is less than 16
kb. That is not an argument to use Prototype.js at all. I'm just
saying. There is something out there called "Prototype light" that
removes a lot of less commonly used features. I imagine the Ajax part
must have stated in this smaller version. However I don't think this
would be any better to use as Prototype is full of problems.

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces

of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the higher level
facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of the remaining code. This
is one of the most fundamental of the design flaws in Prototype.js, and
is so ingrained that it can never now be rectified.

Why could it not be rectified? I think they could quite easily. The
library could be written so that it has the same API and that none of
the internals of the library depends on the library's sugar. The fact
that they don't do this is one sign of the library's weakness. The
Prototype community has no interest in the benefits of modularity or
plenty of other good programming practices, however. So if by
"ingrained" you mean culturally ingrained then I think you are
probably right.

Peter

[RobG]

On Jan 30, 9:28 pm, Dautkha...@gmai l.com wrote:

Hello !

Does anybody have cutted version of prototype.js with
the AJAX functionality only?

70kb js code for a web site is still a huge burden.

I think it can be reduced in size to around 30KB quite easily. But I
wouldn't recommend Prototype if all you want is AJAX functionality.

>
I am a new in prototype.js topic, so I think this task
should be done by other developers.

This isn't really the place to discuss Prototype.js unless you want to
discuss some particular aspect of it in regard to javascript in
general.

>
Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

You'd better talk to the Prototype community about that, they have
their own "core" news group. You chances of getting them to do that
are very slim, though they may point you toward someone else who may
have done it.

The following AJAX libraries that are as, or more, functional as well
as smaller and use normal javascript coding style:

YAHOO! UI
<URL: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/docs/...l.Connect.html >

AjaxToolbox
<URL: http://www.ajaxtoolbox.com/ >

FORK
<URL: http://www.forkjavascript.org/ajax/docs >
--
Rob

[Dautkhanov]

On 31 ñÎ×., 09:42, "RobG" <[e-mail] .auwrote:

>
YAHOO! UI
<URL:http://developer.yahoo .com/yui/docs/YAHOO.util.Conn ect.html>

I tested three ajax-support libraries today, including prototype.
FORK not even tested since it has no functionality that I'll possibly
require in the future.
I choose yui. It'll be used in productional. It has only 10kb
minimized js code
for ajax support.

Thanks, Rob and all

[Dautkhanov]

On 31 ñÎ×., 09:42, "RobG" <[e-mail] .auwrote:

This isn't really the place to discuss Prototype.js unless you want to
discuss some particular aspect of it in regard to javascript in
general.

Anyway, I love some concepts of prototype.js like a $() and $F()
shortcuts. I have to integrate into my project.

[Richard Cornford]

Peter Michaux wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

>Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces

of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the
higher level facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of
the remaining code. This is one of the most fundamental of
the design flaws in Prototype.js, and is so ingrained that it
can never now be rectified.

Why could it not be rectified? I think they could quite
easily. The library could be written so that it has the
same API and that none of the internals of the library
depends on the library's sugar.

<snip>

Try it and find out for yourself. However, remember that the full
contract for the API has never been spelled out in ECMAScript terms so
reproducing the API would require reproducing _everything_ that the API
currently does (quirk for consequential quirk). Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.

However, I would include the API itself as part of library's inherent
design flaws, so reproducing it does not seem like a worthwhile exercise.

Richard.

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Peter Michaux wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

Maybe protorype.js should be splitted into small pieces
of the js scripts with groupped functionality
in a feature releases?

Prototype.js is almost completely interdependent. All of the
higher level facilities it provides rely 100% on the bulk of
the remaining code. This is one of the most fundamental of
the design flaws in Prototype.js, and is so ingrained that it
can never now be rectified.

Why could it not be rectified? I think they could quite
easily. The library could be written so that it has the
same API and that none of the internals of the library
depends on the library's sugar.

<snip>

Try it and find out for yourself. However, remember that the full
contract for the API has never been spelled out in ECMAScript terms so
reproducing the API would require reproducing _everything_ that the API
currently does (quirk for consequential quirk).

Ok. If you add that requirement then it is a different story, more
work and more pointless. I thought part of the deal would be to
implement the current API how they authors think it works.
Modularization of the current Prototype library could still be done by
in-lining code for calls to other parts of the library but the code
would expand at least some.

Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.

What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)

However, I would include the API itself as part of library's inherent
design flaws, so reproducing it does not seem like a worthwhile exercise.

Agreed.

Peter

[Randy Webb]

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 12:23 PM:

On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

>Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.

What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)

Considering most of the flaws and problems with prototype.js doesn't
that question seem to answer itself? If the authors truly understood
what they had written - and the impacts of it - then it wouldn't suffer
most of the problems it suffers from.

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

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 3, 11:04 am, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/3/2007 12:23 PM:

On Feb 3, 5:43 am, "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litote s.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>

Baring in mind that its
own authors don't fully understand what they have written.

What makes you think that? (I'm not disagreeing.)

Considering most of the flaws and problems with prototype.js doesn't
that question seem to answer itself? If the authors truly understood
what they had written - and the impacts of it - then it wouldn't suffer
most of the problems it suffers from.

I am guilty of this also but whenever Prototype is criticized would be
a good idea to have a concrete reason for the criticism for the given
context. This would mean knowing how the current Prototype code works.
It seems the Prototype group puts in a huge struggle to try to change
anything in that code. It could be too many cooks in the kitchen now
and they can't agree on anything. Moving mountains is tricky too. I
don't know what's going on in that group and why they can't get a few
thousand lines of code together. I was just curious which details
Richard thinks are particularly offensive. Maybe the faq should have
an up-to-date entry like Matt's page about why Prototype is a bad idea
to use. It comes up here so often and the faq is the official
response.

Peter