Mootools vs Prototype?

[Seth Illgard]

I need one of those. But which one should I pick?

Mootools looks great becouse I dont need to use the bad-document-but-
still-great scriptaculus.

What do you think?

[Randy Webb]

Seth Illgard said the following on 3/11/2007 6:05 PM:

I need one of those.

One of what?

But which one should I pick?

The one that best satisfies your needs. Prototype seems to be getting
better about support (at least there is a group dedicated to it). Don't
know about Mootools.

Mootools looks great becouse I dont need to use the bad-document-but-
still-great scriptaculus.

That should answer your question then :)

What do you think?

I think if I had 100 Million Dollars US I would retire to the Bahamas :)

If you can't handle the 100 Million, just 2 Million will do fine :)

--
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/

[Seth Illgard]

On 11 mar, 16:20, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtH... @aol.comwrote:

Seth Illgard said the following on 3/11/2007 6:05 PM:

I need one of those.

One of what?

But which one should I pick?

The one that best satisfies your needs. Prototype seems to be getting
better about support (at least there is a group dedicated to it). Don't
know about Mootools.

Mootools looks great becouse I dont need to use the bad-document-but-
still-great scriptaculus.

That should answer your question then :)

What do you think?

I think if I had 100 Million Dollars US I would retire to the Bahamas :)

If you can't handle the 100 Million, just 2 Million will do fine :)

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

Thats the problem exactly. Mootools is not THAT popular, but seems to
fit my needs better at this moment. But, becouse im building a CMS
that will require a lot of stuff and sub-systems, I think that a
popular framework will be more flexible(protot ype). That is my dilema.

[Matt Kruse]

Seth Illgard wrote:

Thats the problem exactly. Mootools is not THAT popular, but seems to
fit my needs better at this moment.

Check out jQuery - http://www.jquery.com

It is the best framework available, IMO. It's very lightweight, has a lot of
plugins (including Interface for nice effects), it is very well documented
and the community is EXTREMELY active and helpful.

MooTools is nice but it is not very popular and I don't think it will be one
of the big players down the road. When choosing a framework I think it is
best to choose one that will remain popular, well documented, and well
supported in the future. The jQuery world is growing like crazy and I think
it has a more promising future than either Moo or Prototype.

I have chosen to standardize on jQuery not only for my own purposes, but
also for an entire company of web developers. I highly recommend you take a
look at it and consider it before choosing either Moo or Prototype.

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com

[RobG]

On Mar 12, 8:05 am, "Seth Illgard" <Seth.Illg...@g mail.comwrote:

I need one of those. But which one should I pick?

Mootools looks great becouse I dont need to use the bad-document-but-
still-great scriptaculus.

What do you think?

That you shouldn't multi-post:

<URL: http://groups.google.com.au/group/ru...3bda0cee5ee62e

>

Much better to cross-post so that both groups can see responses, you
only need to check one group, you save server and user storage and
bandwidth...

FWIW, I agree with Matt's suggestion about JQuery.
--
Rob

[-Lost]

"Matt Kruse" <ne********@mat tkruse.comwrote in message
news:et******** *@news3.newsguy .com...

Seth Illgard wrote:

>Thats the problem exactly. Mootools is not THAT popular, but seems to
fit my needs better at this moment.

Check out jQuery - http://www.jquery.com

It is the best framework available, IMO. It's very lightweight, has a lot of plugins
(including Interface for nice effects), it is very well documented and the community is
EXTREMELY active and helpful.

MooTools is nice but it is not very popular and I don't think it will be one of the big
players down the road. When choosing a framework I think it is best to choose one that
will remain popular, well documented, and well supported in the future. The jQuery world
is growing like crazy and I think it has a more promising future than either Moo or
Prototype.

Cow goes moo, not me. Too much code to wade through if you really wanted to build large
or involved applications.

My current Moo library is a whopping 140KB uncompressed, jQuery on the other hand is 57KB
uncompressed. And elegant, in a way.

I have chosen to standardize on jQuery not only for my own purposes, but also for an
entire company of web developers. I highly recommend you take a look at it and consider
it before choosing either Moo or Prototype.

For those not in the know, does that mean you and your associates are going to use jQuery
as the basis for all of your future developments?

-Lost

[Matt Kruse]

-Lost wrote:

For those not in the know, does that mean you and your associates are
going to use jQuery as the basis for all of your future developments?

Yes.

Any page that requires javascript will include jQuery as a base, and
functionality will built on top of it either page-by-page or as plugins. I
believe that javascript development has reached the point where people
shouldn't need to be worrying about cross-browser quirks or
language-specific implementation details. These things should be handled by
a small (jquery=19k) base framework written and maintained by people
dedicated to making it as robust as possible. That frees the developer to
focus on the business logic and functionality required, which in turn
results in better interfaces. Assuming the base framework is solid (which I
believe jQuery is) then this approach is the only way to move forward with a
team and make more useful web applications.

--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com

[-Lost]

"Matt Kruse" <ne********@mat tkruse.comwrote in message
news:et******** *@news3.newsguy .com...

-Lost wrote:

>For those not in the know, does that mean you and your associates are
going to use jQuery as the basis for all of your future developments?

Yes.

Any page that requires javascript will include jQuery as a base, and functionality will
built on top of it either page-by-page or as plugins. I believe that javascript
development has reached the point where people shouldn't need to be worrying about
cross-browser quirks or language-specific implementation details. These things should be
handled by a small (jquery=19k) base framework written and maintained by people
dedicated to making it as robust as possible. That frees the developer to focus on the
business logic and functionality required, which in turn results in better interfaces.
Assuming the base framework is solid (which I believe jQuery is) then this approach is
the only way to move forward with a team and make more useful web applications.

Granted, I am no professional in the world of JavaScript, but I could not agree more with
your statements.

I tended to lean towards jQuery based on other recommendations in the past, and so far
have not been disappointed. I can only imagine your future clients will feel the same
way.

-Lost