BeeRich wrote:
<snip>
In any case, Prototype isn't supported here. I hope I posted
in the right font, location, etc.
It is not reasonable to say "Prototype isn't supported here" (beyond
saying that nobody here is likely to be recommending its use). This
group doesn't support, or not support, anything beyond javascript in
general, and the majority of questions asked are in relation to code
that is either unique or broadly unknown to the people who are being
asked to answer the questions asked. Yet questions do get answered.
If people asking questions in relation to Prototype.js would present
the code they were using, including (in isolation) the parts of
Prototype.js they were employing (that is, the whole context of the
question, and nothing else) then their questions would likely receive
the same consideration as any other.
The problem as it stands seems to be that people asking questions about
Prototype.js are expecting everyone here to be familiar with its code,
despite the fact that it is a poorly conceived, convoluted library that
has never been cross-browsers and is now not even ECMAScript compatible
(that is, few will want to study Prototype.js as most could write there
own code and get a far superior result). And the individuals using
Prototype.js are not themselves capable of reducing it to just the
pertinent code in order to ask there questions in a form that can be
answered (partly a consequence of its being overly convoluted).
Richard.