Prototype - Good/Bad/Why?

[ashore]

Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
someone share your views, either way?

Thanks,

AS

[Randy Webb]

David Mark said the following on 2/15/2008 10:42 PM:

<snip>

The average Web developer can achieve lousy results on
their own, so what is the benefit of adding 100K of
third-party incompetence to the mix?

Incompetence and peer pressure. Not knowing better and because
"everybody" is using it.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[David Mark]

On Feb 16, 12:50*am, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

David Mark said the following on 2/15/2008 10:42 PM:

<snip>

The average Web developer can achieve lousy results on
their own, so what is the benefit of adding 100K of
third-party incompetence to the mix?

Incompetence and peer pressure. Not knowing better and because
"everybody" is using it.

It sometimes seems like "everybody" is doing it. What I can't
understand is why huge corporations would put their faith in trash
like Prototripe/Craptaculous (typically to add a few nifty fade
effects.) Can't they afford to pay competent developers? On the
server side, most appear to believe that .NET is the answer. If so,
what was the question?

From what I have read about IE8 (specifically the new versioning meta
tag), all of the libraries that rely on IE-sniffing are in for a rude
awakening. Will the authors finally see the folly of their ways or
will they add more branching based on the content of the meta tag?

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, ashore <[e-mail]:

Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
someone share your views, either way?

<FAQENTRY>

Shouldn't something about Prototype be in the FAQ? It comes up very
frequently.

Peter

[David Mark]

On Feb 16, 1:23*am, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, ashore <[e-mail]:

Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. *Can
someone share your views, either way?

<FAQENTRY>

Shouldn't something about Prototype be in the FAQ? It comes up very
frequently.

Peter

I propose a two word entry: mostly harmful.
And for jQuery: completely worthless.

[timothytoe]

>>An FAQ Entry should be unbiased and informative...

Now that's a provocative idea!

[dhtml]

On Feb 16, 11:29 am, timothytoe <[e-mail]:

Until a clj Nazi codes a "correct" library with the capabilities of
jQuery or Prototype or YUI, those libraries will be continue to be
used to make websites. And probably to an acccelerating degree.

<snip blah>

And don't underestimate the impact of these libraries

They do damage. They do this by relying on browser bugs, sniffing the
userAgent, and then patching it with a hack. What happens if the
browser is to fix the bug? Chris Wilson takes about IE trying to "not
break the web".
<snip blah>

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 1:32 pm, dhtml <[e-mail]:

On Feb 16, 11:29 am, timothytoe <[e-mail]:Until a clj Nazi codes a "correct" library with the capabilities of

jQuery or Prototype or YUI, those libraries will be continue to be
used to make websites. And probably to an acccelerating degree.

<snip blah>

And don't underestimate the impact of these libraries

They do damage. They do this by relying on browser bugs, sniffing the
userAgent, and then patching it with a hack. What happens if the
browser is to fix the bug? Chris Wilson takes about IE trying to "not
break the web".

That right there is the most solid argument I've seen against hacking.
That is worth having in your sig line.

Peter

[timothytoe]

>>The contributors to this group have solid arguments why Prototype has
problems. Those would need to be pointed out or the FAQ answer would
not encapsulate the general opinions of the contributors. That is
really what the FAQ is for: to reduce typing the same thing over and
over again. If that is "biased" then the entry should be biased.

It would be incredibly disappointing to me if the clj FAQ Entry for
Prototype failed to condense the supreme rage that occurs when that
library is mentioned into a hellishly hot and nasty black hole of snot.

[timothytoe]

Perhaps the library writers could be more easily convinced to see
things the correct way if insults were not the default form of
greeting on clj.

Or is the entertainment value of belittling them more valuable than
actually trying to convince them that you are correct?

[David Mark]

On Feb 16, 6:13*pm, timothytoe <[e-mail]:

Perhaps the library writers could be more easily convinced to see

Who and what are you replying to?

things the correct way if insults were not the default form of
greeting on clj.

Au contraire. Insults have been shown to be the default form of
deflecting justifiable criticism of the writers' work. You reap what
you sow.

>
Or is the entertainment value of belittling them more valuable than
actually trying to convince them that you are correct?

I've personally never tried to convince any of them of anything. It
has been shown to be a waste of time. I simply warn others to resist
the urge to use delusions as a crutch.

[timothytoe]

>>have you worked out which post you are
replying to yet?

No, could you please help me with that?

[timothytoe]

Who wants to be coddled in a technical discussion group?

Not I. If only there were some possible middle ground between coddling
and eviscerating.

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 3:13 pm, timothytoe <[e-mail]:

Perhaps the library writers could be more easily convinced to see
things the correct way if insults were not the default form of
greeting on clj.

I agree. The critics could word their criticism in a more friendly way
but perhaps that would remove the sense of conviction they feel. The
criticized could also simply ignore the emotionally charged language
and take the criticism as for what it is: a statement about a piece of
code. It takes both sides to fuel the flames. It is so simple to get
along with folks in this group that I'm amazed those claiming social
graces cannot do it. Odd, eh?

Peter

[Richard Cornford]

timothytoe wrote:

On Feb 16, 5:55 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

>...We expect to see that form followed here. The reasoning
goes; A well formed/complete Usenet post requires a little
discipline, while browser scripting requires a lot of
discipline, so an individual who cannot demonstrate the
former is going to be a hopeless case with regard to the
latter. That may seem harsh and a little arbitrary but
experience has not invalidated it.

<snip>

Ah, I see.

"Said the blind man ... "

Some of you are still reading on Usenet.

If you are reading this then you are reading Usenet. There is no "some"
about it.

I've not done it that way for a few years. I understand
the confusion now. Makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Your are not scoring that well yet.

"Could do better" ;-)

Richard.
--
"Since the use of JavaScript in nonbrowser settings (e.g., server-side
JavaScript) is still rather experimental, the feature set of JavaScript is
still very browser-centric. Thus, the features available in JavaScript are
very closely tied to how browsers evolve and which features they (or their
users) deem as the most important." - John Resig: Pro JavaScript Techniques.
2006

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 11:29 am, timothytoe <[e-mail]:

I agree that browser-sniffing is about as appealing as anus-sniffing,
but programmers in the real-world sometimes need to actually get
things done. A smart programmer (as opposed to a perfection-seeking
zealot} will go with the flow and be able to throw together a website
quickly as a result. Sure, the website will be brittle, and users with
obscure browsers will whine, but that's not a bad way for programmers
to ensure future work.

Or perhaps no work at all.

Peter

[FAQEditor]

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 1:23 AM:

On Feb 15, 1:53 pm, ashore <[e-mail]:

>Guys, I see a fair bit of negativity around re subject package. Can
someone share your views, either way?

<FAQENTRY>

Shouldn't something about Prototype be in the FAQ? It comes up very
frequently.

I have not read the rest of the thread yet, so it may be mentioned. But,
the last time an FAQ Entry was requested on Prototype, it was turned
down. If you list Prototype and the problems with it, then you need to
list YUI, Mootools, etc.. and that becomes way too intensive for the
FAQ. What could be listed is a link to this thread about Prototype and
then links to the other library threads.

All in all, I still think it is a bad idea though.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[FAQEditor]

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:

<snip>

Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?

Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 10:44 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:

<snip>

Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?

Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

How about just a few links to some of these long Prototype threads
rather than trying to get an agreement on an actual critic?

Peter

[Randy Webb]

timothytoe said the following on 2/16/2008 5:06 PM:

>>The contributors to this group have solid arguments why Prototype has

problems. Those would need to be pointed out or the FAQ answer would
not encapsulate the general opinions of the contributors. That is
really what the FAQ is for: to reduce typing the same thing over and
over again. If that is "biased" then the entry should be biased.

It would be incredibly disappointing to me if the clj FAQ Entry for
Prototype failed to condense the supreme rage that occurs when that
library is mentioned into a hellishly hot and nasty black hole of snot.

If this group decides that an entry in the FAQ should be added for
Prototype.js, then it will reflect the current thinking about
Prototype.js in this group. If the truth hurts peoples feelings, then
they need to learn to bear the pain. My personal feelings about a
subject have never entered into the way an entry is written, modified,
or removed.

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

[FAQEditor]

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 1:57 AM:

On Feb 16, 10:44 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:

<snip>

>>Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?

Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

How about just a few links to some of these long Prototype threads
rather than trying to get an agreement on an actual critic?

Adding an entry isn't a big deal. It just a few lines pasted into a
file. The rest is automated. As for whether it should be in there or
not, let me see if I can find the thread where it was talked about last
time.

<FAQENTRY>
What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient
lack of quality as to make them useless in a cross-browser environment.
These are a few of the discussions that have taken place in the past
about libraries available for general public use:

Prototype.js:
<URL here>
<URL here>
<URL here>

YUI:
<URL here>
<URL here>

Mootools:
<URL here>
<URL here>

Etc..

That is a start.

I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 1:57 AM:

On Feb 16, 10:44 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/16/2008 4:47 PM:

<snip>

>Randy, what do you say? Is a FAQ entry acceptable?
Fine by me. See my other reply. Somebody writes a Prototype entry and
the group wants it in the FAQ, I will add it :)

How about just a few links to some of these long Prototype threads
rather than trying to get an agreement on an actual critic?

Adding an entry isn't a big deal. It just a few lines pasted into a
file. The rest is automated. As for whether it should be in there or
not, let me see if I can find the thread where it was talked about last
time.

<FAQENTRY>

What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

"mainstream, downloadable general purpose"?

lack of quality as to make them useless in a cross-browser environment.
These are a few of the discussions that have taken place in the past
about libraries available for general public use:

Prototype.js:
<URL here>
<URL here>
<URL here>

YUI:
<URL here>
<URL here>

Mootools:
<URL here>
<URL here>

Etc..

That is a start.

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

Peter

[FAQEditor]

FAQEditor said the following on 2/17/2008 2:21 AM:

As for whether it should be in there or not, let me see
if I can find the thread where it was talked about last
time.

Searching for prototype.js and FAQENTRY doesn't find the thread I am
remembering. I will try finding it tomorrow if nobody else does first.
The general idea of the thread I am hunting was that if you listed
Prototype, then you would need to list the rest and it goes to the issue
that Richard was talking about where it could become a never ending list
as more libraries come out.

What might be better, to keep the FAQ entry size down, is to simply link
to a Notes page where it can list different libraries and the
discussions here about them. That way, as libraries come out or new
threads are started about them, the FAQ doesn't grow every time a
library is discussed.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Randy Webb]

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

<snip>

>What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

"mainstream, downloadable general purpose"?

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

<snip>

>
I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

>I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

You know me too well :)

I think that Matt's libraries should be included as well if there are
any threads where they are discussed. From what I have seen though, when
Matt finds out about a problem with one of his, he tries to correct it.

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

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

<snip>

What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

"mainstream, downloadable general purpose"?

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

I can find some.

I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
in them?

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

You know me too well :)

I think that Matt's libraries should be included as well if there are
any threads where they are discussed. From what I have seen though, when
Matt finds out about a problem with one of his, he tries to correct it.

Matt did mention in one of the recent, colossal jQuery threads that he
uses jQuery at work and doesn't have much time for his own code
anymore. I don't know if he is keeping up to date.

I don't think Matt's library should be mentioned because it is not a
frequently asked question. Also there is not a consensus that Matt's
library is bad (actually it is probably the contrary) so I wouldn't
want to imply anything about his code.

Peter

[Peter Michaux]

On Feb 16, 11:41 pm, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

<snip>

>What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

>The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
>that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

"mainstream, downloadable general purpose"?

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

I can find some.

I didn't say I was going to spend my life compiling them all.

These are ones I remember and all involve regulars and the general
opinions in the group. In some of the threads more than one library is
mentioned but I've grouped by the library that took the hardest hit.

Prototype
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....1f03af63cc81c2
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....72e63631688fc4

jQuery
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5949d1bcce6e6a

YUI
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fce445673d7135
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c2a1b93d566b74

Peter

[dhtml]

On Feb 16, 11:41 pm, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:

On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:

<snip>

>What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?

>The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
>that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient

"mainstream, downloadable general purpose"?

I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.

I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.

You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

I can find some.

>I haven't been following your RFC threads lately, anything FAQ related
>in them?

I don't think so. Some interesting minutia about cross-browser testing
host objects and the ECMAScript spec. I know you really like that
stuff.

You know me too well :)

I think that Matt's libraries should be included as well if there are
any threads where they are discussed. From what I have seen though, when
Matt finds out about a problem with one of his, he tries to correct it.

Matt did mention in one of the recent, colossal jQuery threads that he
uses jQuery at work and doesn't have much time for his own code
anymore. I don't know if he is keeping up to date.

I don't think any library should be endorsed. Or condemned. Matt's
library does not appear to be maintained.

Is there a bug count that, say, Prototype exceeds, yet Javascript
toolbox doesn't?

Which library should I use?

would be a good FAQEntry.

It could cover a range of things from: What are your needs/what are
you trying to accomplish? Or all or none of the following:

Library: jQuery :
overview: <BLAH>
pro: small, simple API
con: oversimplified; code behind methods is complicated, difficult
to test
<UNBIASED EXAMPLE>
known bugs /issues: <UNBIASED EXAMPLE>
highlights:

Then the reader can make his onw decision.

Pick Popular libraries that getasked about frequently. EXT, YUI,

I don't think Matt's library should be mentioned because it is not a
frequently asked question. Also there is not a consensus that Matt's
library is bad (actually it is probably the contrary) so I wouldn't
want to imply anything about his code.

Peter

[Matt Kruse]

On Feb 17, 1:41 am, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

Matt did mention in one of the recent, colossal jQuery threads that he
uses jQuery at work and doesn't have much time for his own code
anymore. I don't know if he is keeping up to date.

I don't read this group as intensely anymore, but I'm flattered that I
am remembered! ;) I will now proceed to wander off-topic...

I do not write much code anymore, either at home or work. You know how
it goes, all genius must happen before wife and kids, and I'm way too
late for that. I consider most of my code to be pretty solid for what
it does, and there isn't a lot of need to re-visit it. Certainly some
of it should be removed or re-written, since I now know better
practices and could create a better product. But for the most part, I
think a lot of my previous work (certainly not all of it) is still
pretty good.

I have updated some of my code recently, like the table sorting/
filtering/paging library, but I haven't put all the latest stuff out
there. I just don't have much time anymore, or to be honest, much
interest. I use jQuery quite a bit at work and for personal stuff. Not
because it's perfect, because it's certainly not, but because I know
my limited scope and requirements and the trade-off of using a single
library that does everything _I_ need correctly in the environment _I_
know I have versus writing things from scratch definitely leans in the
favor of the jQuery approach.

So lately some of my efforts have been put into writing jquery plugins
for personal/work purposes, or fixing existing plugins, or patching
jquery code to work as I would like it to.

I also spend more time working on Gadgets these days, which I find
more interesting :)
http://www.google.com/ig/authors?hl=...0mattkruse.com

I don't think Matt's library should be mentioned because it is not a
frequently asked question. Also there is not a consensus that Matt's
library is bad (actually it is probably the contrary) so I wouldn't
want to imply anything about his code.

My code may be known in small circles, but nowhere close to libraries
like jquery, prototype, etc. I doubt that anyone looking for pros/cons
of "major libraries" would be looking for comments on my code.

Matt Kruse

[John G Harris]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 at 01:55:27, in comp.lang.javascript, Richard
Cornford wrote:

<snip>

>putting
words into other people's moths

<snip>

I like it :-)

John
--
John Harris

[timothytoe]

On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, John G Harris <[e-mail]:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 at 01:55:27, in comp.lang.javascript, Richard

Cornford wrote:

<snip>>putting

words into other people's moths

<snip>

I like it :-)

John
--
John Harris

Like a mouth to the flame...

[FAQEditor]

Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:53 AM:

On Feb 16, 11:41 pm, Peter Michaux <[e-mail]:

>On Feb 16, 11:35 pm, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

>>Peter Michaux said the following on 2/17/2008 2:30 AM:
On Feb 16, 11:21 pm, FAQEditor <[e-mail]:
<snip>
What are some of the problems with general purpose javascript libraries?
The consensus of regular posters in comp.lang.javascript hold the view
that most, if not all, general purpose libraries are of a sufficient
"mainstream, downloadable general purpose"?
I think that implies, or might, that non-mainstream libraries don't
suffer many of the problems that mainstream libraries do.

Well, if it isn't right, we can be sure Dr Stockton will mention it to
you soon and frequently.

>>>I think it is close enough to the group regular's general feeling. I
don't particularly agree with the social skills displayed in the
threads to be linked but they sure do express the sentiment of the
most vocal regulars.
You going to volunteer to hunt and weed out the threads for links?

I can find some.

I didn't say I was going to spend my life compiling them all.

No, no need to do that.

These are ones I remember and all involve regulars and the general
opinions in the group. In some of the threads more than one library is
mentioned but I've grouped by the library that took the hardest hit.

Prototype
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....1f03af63cc81c2
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....72e63631688fc4

jQuery
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5949d1bcce6e6a

YUI
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fce445673d7135
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c2a1b93d566b74

I have saved this post so I don't lose the links. Thank you.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
FAQ Notes: http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
ECMAScript Language Specification via FAQ2.6

[Gregor Kofler]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

[Richard Cornford]

Gregor Kofler wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

>John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

Don't bet on that. How do you think he found the signature in the first
place if not looking himself up on Google? The reply(s) may be found in the
same way.

Richard.

[Randy Webb]

Gregor Kofler said the following on 2/18/2008 3:39 AM:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

>John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

That's his loss. John Resig could learn a lot from this group and this
thread in particular.

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

[David Mark]

On Feb 18, 5:01*am, Randy Webb <[e-mail]:

Gregor Kofler said the following on 2/18/2008 3:39 AM:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

That's his loss. John Resig could learn a lot from this group and this
thread in particular.

It is also the loss of anybody who relies on his code to build Web
pages and applications, their clients, and ultimately the unwitting
end-users. Then there are those who attempt to learn about JavaScript
and general browser scripting issues from studying his code, blogs,
books, etc.

Clearly his inability to come to terms with his own incompetence and
refusal to learn from those who know better results in damages that
are far-reaching and losses that are virtually incalculable.

[Gregor Kofler]

Randy Webb meinte:

Gregor Kofler said the following on 2/18/2008 3:39 AM:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

>>John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

That's his loss. John Resig could learn a lot from this group and this
thread in particular.

Well, since he is a self-proclaimed "JavaScript evangelist" (as a
non-native speaker I find such notions ...er... odd), I suppose he
relies on "believing" instead of "learning and understanding".

Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

[David Mark]

On Feb 18, 5:37*am, Gregor Kofler <[e-mail]:

Randy Webb meinte:

Gregor Kofler said the following on 2/18/2008 3:39 AM:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:
John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

That's his loss. John Resig could learn a lot from this group and this
thread in particular.

Well, since he is a self-proclaimed "JavaScript evangelist" (as a

LOL. I haven't heard that one before.

non-native speaker I find such notions ...er... odd), I suppose he

English is my first language and I don't know what that means either.

relies on "believing" instead of "learning and understanding".

Exactly. And he only preaches to his own choir. When addressing more
enlightened denominations (this group for example), he comes off as a
"JavaScript charlatan" and is quickly booed off the stage.

[Gregor Kofler]

David Mark meinte:

>Well, since he is a self-proclaimed "JavaScript evangelist" (as a

LOL. I haven't heard that one before.

Here:
http://ejohn.org/about/

Since he is the "JavaScript Evangelist for the Mozilla Corporation" I
should reconsider my using of Firefox... But then: Perhaps he's just the
professional guinea pig for debugging add-ons like FireBug.

Gregor

--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

[toby.oconnell]

On Feb 18, 2:37*am, Gregor Kofler <[e-mail]:

>
Well, since he is a self-proclaimed "JavaScript evangelist" (as a
non-native speaker I find such notions ...er... odd), I suppose he
relies on "believing" instead of "learning and understanding".

Gregor

Evangelism primarily refers to Christianity, but is also defined as
enthusiasm. He is claiming to be a JS enthusiast or fanatic rather
than a "believer," which would not make much sense in this context.
Unless there is JavaScript in the Bible Code somewhere ;-)

http://www.google.com/search?q=progr...age+evangelist

[Gregor Kofler]

to***********@gmail.com meinte:

Evangelism primarily refers to Christianity, but is also defined as
enthusiasm.
He is claiming to be a JS enthusiast or fanatic rather
than a "believer," which would not make much sense in this context.

Well, the *others* (must be "JS disciples" then) have to believe. clj
regulars are mere heretics.

Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Gregor Kofler wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn meinte:

>John Resig wrote:

[snip]

I doubt that he is reading this reply...

When others do a foolish thing you should tell them it is a foolish thing.
They can still continue to do it, but at least the truth is where it needs
to be.
-- Dukhat (from: "Babylon 5" - "Atonement")
Regards,

PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Gregor Kofler wrote:

David Mark meinte:

>>Well, since he is a self-proclaimed "JavaScript evangelist" (as a

LOL. I haven't heard that one before.

Here:
http://ejohn.org/about/

Since he is the "JavaScript Evangelist for the Mozilla Corporation" I
should reconsider my using of Firefox... But then: Perhaps he's just the
professional guinea pig for debugging add-ons like FireBug.

I didn't get the last one. Firebug (no caps in between) was conceived
and is continued to be developed by Joe Hewitt, who appears to me to be
a !(John Resig) regarding his approach at Web software development. At
least I found my Firebug beta test comments very well received.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16

[Matt Kruse]

On Feb 19, 1:19 pm, David Mark <[e-mail]:

I had to close two error alerts in IE just to navigate to this post in
Google Groups.

You should have saved your time and not bothered.

Matt Kruse

[David Mark]

On Feb 19, 2:43*pm, Matt Kruse <[e-mail]:

On Feb 19, 1:19 pm, David Mark <[e-mail]:

I had to close two error alerts in IE just to navigate to this post in
Google Groups.

You should have saved your time and not bothered.

You could have saved me considerable time by not replying in the first
place. The world didn't need a rehash of the original re-tread. We
had this same discussion three months ago.

[Evertjan.]

Dag Sunde wrote on 19 feb 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:

"Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.ukwrote in message

>It would be unfortunate for anyone to fall victim to the delusion that a
statement could be worth more, more true or more significant as a
consequence of who made it.

Then it is unfortunate indeed!

But a statement is worth more to ME
if made by someone whose judgement I value,
but that does not go sofar
as to trust the statement in a scientific sense.

Doubt is the basis of science.

Therefore "proving" an argument by just quoting someone,
even if it is an "authority", should be distrusted.

Technology should be based on science.
Programming is a technology.
Playing/working with javascript is a form of programming.
So distrusting proof by authority is a healthy habit also in javascript.

Modern society and its power-structures are buildt on the delusion that a
statement *is* worth more, more true or more significant depending on who
made it.

I do not hold this building for true, as per the above reasons, Dag.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Richard Cornford]

David Mark wrote:
<snip>

Crockford is one of the leading experts on JavaScript.
Other than Richard Cornford, I am not familiar with
any bigger authorities on the language.

<snip>

Martin Honnen? For experience and technical knowledge Martin is pretty had
to beat.

As worded that has the implication that I may be bigger authority on
javascript than Douglas Crockford. I am not very comfortable with that idea.
Partly because I am not very comfortable with the idea of authority at all;
nobody's ideas are worth any more, or any less, than the reasoning behind
them. But mostly because Douglas Crockford was genuinely an expert when I
was a complete novice and making all the amateurish mistakes that are
expected of novices.

I learnt a huge amount from Douglas Crockford as a result of our exchanges
on this group, and even more as a direct result of reading his articles and
code. It is the case, for example, that I maybe would never have pursued
closures were it not for Douglas Crockford's method for creating private
members of javascript object instances (because that more OO employment of
closures had more concrete appeal at the time for a former Java programmer
than Yann-Erwan Perio's fascinating functional programming examples).

It is difficult to understate the significance of JSON. Javascript's object
notation sat under our noses for years but it took a genius to notice that a
subset of it could be directly interchangeable with XML but more efficient,
and that genius was Douglas Crockford. JSON is here to stay, and if
inventing it were his only legacy that alone would be a significant
accolade. But if you look at every significant change in the way javascript
is coded that has happened over the last half decade or so a line of
influences traced back might branch and spider along the way but sooner or
later it would link to Douglas Crockford.

Richard.

[David Mark]

On Feb 19, 8:31*pm, "Richard Cornford" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

David Mark wrote:

<snip>Crockford is one of the leading experts on JavaScript.

Other than Richard Cornford, I am not familiar with
any bigger authorities on the language.

<snip>

Martin Honnen? For experience and technical knowledge Martin is pretty had
to beat.

Yes, he always seems to know what he is talking about. And how could
I have left out Jim Ley? Then again, perhaps he is more known for
cross-browser scripting expertise (like PPK.) He got me off browser
sniffing many years back (yes, I once thought the user agent string
was source of relevant information.) What ever happened to him?

>
As worded that has the implication that I may be bigger authority on
javascript than Douglas Crockford. I am not very comfortable with that idea.

I didn't really mean to imply that. But isn't his famed "module
pattern" something you came up with first?

Partly because I am not very comfortable with the idea of authority at all;
nobody's ideas are worth any more, or any less, than the reasoning behind
them. But mostly because Douglas Crockford was genuinely an expert when I
was a complete novice and making all the amateurish mistakes that are
expected of novices.

I learnt a huge amount from Douglas Crockford as a result of our exchanges
on this group, and even more as a direct result of reading his articles and
code. It is the case, for example, that I maybe would never have pursued
closures were it not for Douglas Crockford's method for creating private
members of javascript object instances (because that more OO employment of
closures had more concrete appeal at the time for a former Java programmer
than Yann-Erwan Perio's fascinating functional programming examples).

I had barely heard of them a year or so back. It was your article on
the subject that changed the way I write script. The various demos on
your site are what led me to use one-off feature detection/testing. I
don't know how I got by for so many years without that pattern. It
goes to show that it doesn't take a lifetime to learn advanced browser
scripting techniques if you choose the examples you follow carefully.
On the other hand, there are so many poor sources of information on
JavaScript out there that it is very easy to get lost forever.

>
It is difficult to understate the significance of JSON. Javascript's object
notation sat under our noses for years but it took a genius to notice thata
subset of it could be directly interchangeable with XML but more efficient,
and that genius was Douglas Crockford. JSON is here to stay, and if
inventing it were his only legacy that alone would be a significant
accolade. But if you look at every significant change in the way javascript
is coded that has happened over the last half decade or so a line of
influences traced back might branch and spider along the way but sooner or
later it would link to Douglas Crockford.

I imagine so. I use one of his programs (JSLint) to "supervise" my
own code. It is quite humbling when somebody else's *code* knows more
about JavaScript than you do! Lately it only catches typos, but there
was a time when it would inform me of all sorts of issues that I was
otherwise unaware of. If I ran some of my 90's code through it, it
would probably tell me to find a new career.

[Randy Webb]

David Mark said the following on 2/19/2008 9:50 PM:

On Feb 19, 8:31 pm, "Richard Cornford" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>David Mark wrote:

<snip>Crockford is one of the leading experts on JavaScript.

>>Other than Richard Cornford, I am not familiar with
any bigger authorities on the language.

<snip>

Martin Honnen? For experience and technical knowledge Martin is pretty had
to beat.

Yes, he always seems to know what he is talking about. And how could
I have left out Jim Ley? Then again, perhaps he is more known for
cross-browser scripting expertise (like PPK.) He got me off browser
sniffing many years back (yes, I once thought the user agent string
was source of relevant information.) What ever happened to him?

He (Jim) is still around, you just don't see him much anymore.

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

[Arnaud Diederen]

David Mark <dm***********@gmail.comwrites:

>
Crockford is one of the leading experts on JavaScript. Other than
Richard Cornford, I am not familiar with any bigger authorities on the
language.

In my early JavaScript coding days, I found out about Matt Kruse's
Knowledge Database
<URL: http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/search/>, which is
basically just a re-dispatch of queries to google "web" and google
groups.

I spotted the "trusted" names on the query in the lower frame
(type, for example -niark niark- "Prototype.js" in the input field, to
perform a query) and raised their score in my Gnus client.

The posts of those people turned out to be, at least, most reliable!

Best,
A.

[Randy Webb]

Arnaud Diederen (aundro) said the following on 2/20/2008 5:40 AM:

David Mark <dm***********@gmail.comwrites:

>Crockford is one of the leading experts on JavaScript. Other than
Richard Cornford, I am not familiar with any bigger authorities on the
language.

In my early JavaScript coding days, I found out about Matt Kruse's
Knowledge Database
<URL: http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/search/>, which is
basically just a re-dispatch of queries to google "web" and google
groups.

I spotted the "trusted" names on the query in the lower frame
(type, for example -niark niark- "Prototype.js" in the input field, to
perform a query) and raised their score in my Gnus client.

The posts of those people turned out to be, at least, most reliable!

Matt, if you are reading this, a search on that page for the simple
phrase "prototype.js" turns up zero hits in Usenet. It should find at
least some as I know that I have used prototype.js in posts as an
author. If I do a manual search in Google Groups for it, then I find it.

Phrase: prototype.js
Group: comp.lang.javascript
Author: Randy Webb

Your site gives me zero hits, a manual search gives me 88 results.

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