Javascript Library

[shapper]

Hello,

I would like to use a javascript library to simplify my coding
process.
I know a few: JQuery, Dojo, Yahoo UI, ...

Which one do you advice me to use?

Thanks,
Miguel

[David Mark]

On Oct 30, 6:09 pm, spamb...@milmac .com (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article <1193766517.521 764.170...@y42g 2000hsy.googleg roups.com>, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Oct 30, 1:27 pm, spamb...@milmac .com (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article <1193763312.381 969.138...@22g2 000hsm.googlegr oups.com>, David Mark

<dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Oct 30, 12:12 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@mattkruse .comwrote:
On Oct 30, 9:50 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

Could you please tell me where I can get a copy of your js library?
You cannot.

Why not?

Because I don't want to give it to him.

So sell it. <g>

I have, in the past, considered selling JavaScript libraries and
widgets, but it seems to me that too many people are giving them
away. Factor in that most potential customers are unable to evaluate
code quality and you get a pretty lousy market outlook.

Free stuff is often worth not much more than the price paid. If yours is
enough better than the free stuff, your market might be larger than you think.

But don't you think a large portion of that market would just steal
the code?

[tony.gurnick]

you could also argue that an "Ultimate Javascript Library" that I cant
have is infinitley more useless than a badly coded, in-efficient
library that I can have.

[Brian Adkins]

On Oct 31, 12:32 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

On Oct 30, 8:26 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gm ail.comwrote:
It was intended to be obviously unreasonable.

Thank you for your honesty.

Do you reuse code from others? If so, what are the sources of code
that you've found valuable.

YUI and other libraries

Care to name even one in addition to YUI. Don't worry about
requirements, specs, contexts. Since YUI is the only one folks have
offered up, I'm just curious if another exists. Even a small one
that's used by more than a handful of people would be good.

I was being an ass

Agreed.

Perhaps "valuable, time saving libraries" are readily available in the
Common Lisp world but not in the JavaScript world.

Gee, do you think that's the question I've been vainly trying to get
answered? But Peter, how can you make that conjecture without a spec,
requirement or context? That's a joke - don't answer it.

Somewhere communication has broken down.

Yes.

It seems you think you have
clearly stated your library specs.

Peter, only an idiot would think that I had clearly stated "library
specs", or more importantly that it was my intention to do so, so I
must assume that you consider me an idiot. There will be no Christmas
card forthcoming.

How can you miss something so simple? I am^H^Hwas simply trying to get
a feel for which "preexistin g code written by people other than me" is
worthwhile to consider using in future projects before I reinvent the
wheel myself. Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to others.
Does it seem like a reasonable quest? It does to others.

Really - ask some people at your workplace as a poll. This group is
biased beyond hope at this point. Just ask them, "Hey, some guy on
comp.lang.javas cript asked whether there were any publicly available
JavaScript libraries that were worthwhile to use. So he's an idiot,
right? I mean, he didn't even provide a spec or set of requirements
for that question! How can we possibly interpret that question without
a spec. So, really, he's an idiot, right? There was no context to
guides us or anything." Something like that. Let me know how it goes.

You've assumed people will imply
the same things you have implied in you requirements but that hasn't
appeared to be the case.

Wrong, and you know it, as you admitted with respect to your little
game with the logging code. You knew that was ridiculous, yet you
couldn't think of something that wasn't? Peter, you act as if the
question was so vague as to imply there were far too many answers to
post, and yet the only thing mentioned in hundreds of posting is that
YUI might be worth checking out. Imagine if I had provided a detailed
set of requirements - the options would have been narrowed from 1 to
0.

Currently it takes a newcomer an
unreasonably long time to gather all the information.

I wonder why that is? ;)

[Doug Miller]

In article <11************ **********@o3g2 000hsb.googlegr oups.com>, David Mark <dm***********@ gmail.comwrote:

>On Oct 30, 6:09 pm, spamb...@milmac .com (Doug Miller) wrote:

>In article <1193766517.521 764.170...@y42g 2000hsy.googleg roups.com>, David

Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

>>

>On Oct 30, 1:27 pm, spamb...@milmac .com (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article <1193763312.381 969.138...@22g2 000hsm.googlegr oups.com>, David

Mark

<dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

>On Oct 30, 12:12 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@mattkruse .comwrote:
On Oct 30, 9:50 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

Could you please tell me where I can get a copy of your js library?
You cannot.

>Why not?

>Because I don't want to give it to him.

>So sell it. <g>

>I have, in the past, considered selling JavaScript libraries and
widgets, but it seems to me that too many people are giving them
away. Factor in that most potential customers are unable to evaluate
code quality and you get a pretty lousy market outlook.

Free stuff is often worth not much more than the price paid. If yours is
enough better than the free stuff, your market might be larger than you

think.

>>

But don't you think a large portion of that market would just steal
the code?

Well, sure, if you're silly enough to post it someplace where it can be
downloaded without paying for it first.

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

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

[Peter Michaux]

On Oct 30, 10:12 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gm ail.comwrote:

On Oct 31, 12:32 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

On Oct 30, 8:26 pm, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gm ail.comwrote:
It was intended to be obviously unreasonable.

Thank you for your honesty.

Do you reuse code from others? If so, what are the sources of code
that you've found valuable.

YUI and other libraries

Care to name even one in addition to YUI. Don't worry about
requirements, specs, contexts. Since YUI is the only one folks have
offered up, I'm just curious if another exists. Even a small one
that's used by more than a handful of people would be good.

I already offered mine and the code in the group's faq notes. Also
checkout JavaScript toolbox and Ajax Toolbox my Matt Kruse. Google
will help you find them. I don't know if any of them will be helpful
with your task at hand.

It seems you think you have
clearly stated your library specs.

Peter, only an idiot would think that I had clearly stated "library
specs", or more importantly that it was my intention to do so, so I
must assume that you consider me an idiot. There will be no Christmas
card forthcoming.

How can you miss something so simple? I am^H^Hwas simply trying to get
a feel for which "preexistin g code written by people other than me" is
worthwhile to consider using in future projects before I reinvent the
wheel myself. Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to others.
Does it seem like a reasonable quest? It does to others.

But "reasonable scope" and "any scope" have both been part of the
requirements. Its been a moving target.

People are very reluctant to give such general recommendations . There
must be a reason for being so cautious.

It seems now you've made it concrete and want to know if there is
*any* code at all worth reusing with no other requirements at all.

There is almost an infinite amount of JavaScript code available. Use
google to find code related to your task and evaluate the code if it
is worth reuse. You can at least use reuse the code educationally.

Really - ask some people at your workplace as a poll. This group is
biased beyond hope at this point. Just ask them, "Hey, some guy on
comp.lang.javas cript asked whether there were any publicly available
JavaScript libraries that were worthwhile to use. So he's an idiot,
right? I mean, he didn't even provide a spec or set of requirements
for that question! How can we possibly interpret that question without
a spec. So, really, he's an idiot, right? There was no context to
guides us or anything." Something like that. Let me know how it goes.

You've assumed people will imply
the same things you have implied in you requirements but that hasn't
appeared to be the case.

Wrong, and you know it,

Actually I think that has been the problem.

as you admitted with respect to your little
game with the logging code. You knew that was ridiculous, yet you
couldn't think of something that wasn't?

That is how difficult the question was.

Peter, you act as if the
question was so vague as to imply there were far too many answers to
post, and yet the only thing mentioned in hundreds of posting is that
YUI might be worth checking out.

Take something from that.

Imagine if I had provided a detailed
set of requirements - the options would have been narrowed from 1 to
0.

If you had said form validation then YUI would not have been
mentioned. If you said event libraries it might.

Currently it takes a newcomer an
unreasonably long time to gather all the information.

I wonder why that is? ;)

When new, it is difficult to even know the questions to ask. That was
a big problem for me.

I don't know if it will help with your task I think you should use YUI
for a while.

Peter

[Brian Adkins]

On Oct 31, 8:24 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

I already offered mine and the code in the group's faq notes.

I did bother to check http://www.jibbering.com/faq/ before posting and
didn't find anything. That site mentions faq_notes here:
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

but I didn't see your code there, nor were you listed as a
contributor, so maybe there's another set of "group's faq notes"
somewhere?

Also
checkout JavaScript toolbox and Ajax Toolbox my Matt Kruse.

Thanks

It seems now you've made it concrete and want to know if there is
*any* code at all worth reusing with no other requirements at all.

That's been that case for quite some time. I proceeded as follows:

1) it seems people here think all libraries suck
*therefore*
2) I wonder if there is *any* code that can be recommended

If the responses showed that there were many libraries worth looking
into, then I naturally would need to ask a more specific question, but
that has hardly been the case.

There is almost an infinite amount of JavaScript code available. Use
google to find code related to your task and evaluate the code if it
is worth reuse.

Peter, I don't understand why you made this statement. The purpose in
asking a question such as the one I asked is to avoid spending an
"infinite" amount of time evaluating code, but instead to attempt to
gain from the experience of others. The value of the experience of
other people can range from harmful to helpful, but it can sometimes
narrow down the search to a feasible set of candidates nonetheless.

That is how difficult the question was.

I'm still waiting for the workplace poll results ;)

[Peter Michaux]

On Oct 31, 7:43 am, Brian Adkins <lojicdot...@gm ail.comwrote:

On Oct 31, 8:24 am, Peter Michaux <petermich...@g mail.comwrote:

I already offered mine and the code in the group's faq notes.

I did bother to check http://www.jibbering.com/faq/ before posting and
didn't find anything. That site mentions faq_notes here:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

There are many code snips on those pages and on the pages to which
they link. You have to at least want to see the code for which you
search. For example, the FAQ has three functions for trimming string
whitespace without using regular expressions.

function LTrim(str) {
for (var k=0; k<str.length && str.charAt(k)<= " " ; k++) ;
return str.substring(k ,str.length);
}
function RTrim(str) {
for (var j=str.length-1; j>=0 && str.charAt(j)<= " " ; j--) ;
return str.substring(0 ,j+1);
}
function Trim(str) {
return LTrim(RTrim(str ));
}
Perhaps you have a particular format in which you need to see the code
libraries you are after. That could be baggage you carry coming from
another programming language and development style. There is no
established CPAN or PEAR for JavaScript. There is an attempt called
JSAN but that hasn't gained much traction and likely has not been
evaluated by many regulars here so has not been even a candidate for
recommendation in this thread. The baggage you carry could prevent you
from finding what you are after.

but I didn't see your code there, nor were you listed as a
contributor, so maybe there's another set of "group's faq notes"
somewhere?

There is only one set.

It seems now you've made it concrete and want to know if there is
*any* code at all worth reusing with no other requirements at all.

There is plenty in the group faq and faq notes. There is plenty in the
group archives. There is plenty on the web. There is plenty in the big
name libraries. It may not be in the finalized "library" format you
have been after at certain times in these threads but if you've
removed that requirement then there is plenty. It should be clear now
that there is not some ready made library that can be handed to the
newcomer that is "approved" for reuse in all situations. That is
either unfortunate or impossible.

That's been that case for quite some time. I proceeded as follows:

1) it seems people here think all libraries suck

They don't. They do see many flaws in the big name libraries and
prefer to use their own libraries. Some people use their own libraries
as modules they use as is and release versions to themselves. Some
people use their libraries as cut and paste resources.

*therefore*
2) I wonder if there is *any* code that can be recommended

I hope it is quite clear now that there is at least some code that can
be recommended and this question can die. The trim examples above are
enough to show there is some code that can be recommended.

If the responses showed that there were many libraries worth looking
into, then I naturally would need to ask a more specific question, but
that has hardly been the case.

There is almost an infinite amount of JavaScript code available. Use
google to find code related to your task and evaluate the code if it
is worth reuse.

Peter, I don't understand why you made this statement. The purpose in
asking a question such as the one I asked is to avoid spending an
"infinite" amount of time evaluating code

Just because there is an plethora of JavaScript on the web to evaluate
it doesn't mean you have to spend much time evaluating it. You can
look at the first few hits that google returns and that is usually
sufficient.

>, but instead to attempt to
gain from the experience of others.

Much advice has been offered.

The value of the experience of
other people can range from harmful to helpful, but it can sometimes
narrow down the search to a feasible set of candidates nonetheless.

That is how difficult the question was.

I'm still waiting for the workplace poll results ;)

I'm not asking.

Peter

[David Mark]

On Oct 30, 9:00 pm, "tony.gurni ck" <tony.gurn...@g ooglemail.com>
wrote:

you could also argue that an "Ultimate Javascript Library" that I cant
have is infinitley more useless than a badly coded, in-efficient
library that I can have.

There is no such thing as an "Ultimate JavaScript Library." Clearly
you can't have what doesn't exist. However, as noted several times,
there are other options besides using code that is known to be lousy.

[Matt Kruse]

On Oct 31, 5:36 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

Do you think you are solving extremely unique problems?

Yes.

How so? You don't deal with reading/writing attributes, positioning
elements, showing/hiding objects, animating objects, ajax, etc?

Why not stop badgering me to post all of my code and make do with what
I have posted to this point?

Because you continue to say my way is stupid and your way is far
better, but you refuse to actually show your cards.
I'm calling your bluff, and you have nothing to show.

Isn't that the trust. In fact, it will add 50K of weight to it. As
previously noted, your packer argument doesn't hold water.

Packed, jQuery is 26k. That has nothing to do with compression or gzip
or anything. It's ~26,000 bytes of code. Plain text. Ascii. How is
that confusing?

You are a moron. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you (or the OP) that
if you have n libraries to research and somebody pokes a hundred holes
in one of them, then your task is reduced to n - 1 libraries. You are
just upset because it happened to be the one you recommended.

I'm sure you could poke similar ridiculous "holes" in other libraries.
You're just an anti-library zealot who likes to complain about others
and yet has nothing to show for himself.

And on that note, I've started a discussion on the jQuery dev group
about some of the points you've made, and also some of my own
observations about the attr() function you singled out. You seem to be
unaware of some browser quirks and special cases that jQuery attempts
to address, so I wonder how well your own low-level code handles these
cases. In any case, I've recommended some alternate ways of coding
some parts and hopefully the code will only continue to improve. Much
to your dismay, I'm sure.

Matt Kruse

[David Mark]

On Oct 31, 9:27 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@mattkruse .comwrote:

On Oct 31, 5:36 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@ gmail.comwrote:

Do you think you are solving extremely unique problems?

Yes.

How so? You don't deal with reading/writing attributes, positioning
elements, showing/hiding objects, animating objects, ajax, etc?

Why not stop badgering me to post all of my code and make do with what
I have posted to this point?

Because you continue to say my way is stupid and your way is far
better, but you refuse to actually show your cards.
I'm calling your bluff, and you have nothing to show.

LOL. You are obviously very desperate to see my "cards." The funny
thing is that if you actually read this newsgroup (other than threads
about JavaScript libraries), you could piece together a fair amount of
my code. You want me to put it all together in a pretty package for
you. Forget it.

>

Isn't that the trust. In fact, it will add 50K of weight to it. As
previously noted, your packer argument doesn't hold water.

Packed, jQuery is 26k. That has nothing to do with compression or gzip
or anything. It's ~26,000 bytes of code. Plain text. Ascii. How is
that confusing?

You don't get it. Packer has everything to do with compression. And
it makes the standard GZIP compression less effective. It's stupid.
Do you use it for your scripts? Does anybody of note? It is
misleading to throw this "packed" length out there. Does a 50K
minified script download any faster if it is "packed" to 30K? Of
course not. It may in fact download slower. So it is stupid to use
it as a comparison. jQuery is 50K. Prototype is 80K. A 20K image is
20K. A 10K HTML page is 10K. HTTP and/or modems will compress these
assets during delivery, but most people (and tools) disregard that
when figuring page weights. A meaningful comparison requires all
things equal.

>

You are a moron. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you (or the OP) that
if you have n libraries to research and somebody pokes a hundred holes
in one of them, then your task is reduced to n - 1 libraries. You are
just upset because it happened to be the one you recommended.

I'm sure you could poke similar ridiculous "holes" in other libraries.

Ridiculous?

You're just an anti-library zealot who likes to complain about others
and yet has nothing to show for himself.

You sound desperate. Why don't you use your own "toolkit" and stop
trying to wheedle code out of me.

>
And on that note, I've started a discussion on the jQuery dev group
about some of the points you've made, and also some of my own
observations about the attr() function you singled out. You seem to be
unaware of some browser quirks and special cases that jQuery attempts
to address, so I wonder how well your own low-level code handles these

Wrong. Apart from library threads, do you read this group at all? I
know all too well what they were trying to do and not only did they
botch it, but their comments indicate they have no idea what they were
doing or why.

cases. In any case, I've recommended some alternate ways of coding

In other words, you took all of my suggestions and ran with them. I
am sure the jQuery group will be eternally grateful for "your"
vigilence. Now you want more help. I would give your toolkits the
treatment, but I don't specifically want to help you and I know they
have already been panned ad nauseum here.

some parts and hopefully the code will only continue to improve. Much
to your dismay, I'm sure.

Why would I care?