tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post5994756821800846431..comments2023-06-08T15:07:32.908+03:00Comments on Software development: On Prototype vs jQueryAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00272049513122973998noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post-14287412216496362342008-12-29T23:27:00.000+03:002008-12-29T23:27:00.000+03:00Re: Ivan+1, кроме того стоит рассматривать не стол...Re: Ivan<BR/>+1, кроме того стоит рассматривать не столько сам framework, сколько имеющиеся под него расширения. Сначала и писал всё что только можно под mootools, потом под prototype, а потом попробовал использовать jQuery и с тех пор всё вошло в должное русло.<BR/>Dimitri.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post-46399225614541571432008-05-04T03:51:00.000+04:002008-05-04T03:51:00.000+04:00Максим, возьми любой jQuery плагин и перепеши его ...Максим, возьми любой jQuery плагин и перепеши его на прототайпе.<BR/>Если кода получится не в два раза больше - значит ты победил :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post-10007435149462645412008-05-01T21:10:00.000+04:002008-05-01T21:10:00.000+04:00Hey, Yehuda, you should have read it more carefull...Hey, Yehuda, you should have read it more carefully:<BR/><BR/>1. jQuery's load method does require '?' char (sorry for typo, actually I meant '?' instead of '&') if used as outlined in the original post (with 'url + params', not 'url, params'). And params should be string of 'name=value' parts, concatenated with '&'.<BR/>2. I was not comparing the possibilities of jQuery vs Prototype in terms of whether to use $ or $$. I'm not trying to emulate that syntax, because I don't need it. I just wanted to show, what the true framework API comparison should look like.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that people that writing framework comparisons know almost nothing about how to use them correctly. The write "see how it is easy and elegant in OUR framework, and how ugly and cumbersome it is in THEIR framework". And people who read those comparisons tend to believe, that it is how they are told it is.<BR/><BR/>I'm write javascript sometimes, develop components using Prototype for personal needs. And I know that I need to select by some css selector less often, than be ID attribute. And I don't feel that I need that feature.<BR/><BR/>What I like about Prototype is that it gives me foundation to write object-oriented (!) code with ease. It is not some API to manipulate DOM objects, it is extension to Javascript language. In Javascript there are some base classes like Object, String or Array. Prototype extends those classes to add some useful features that can help developer to write more compact and expressive code. But Prototype also adds more missing concepts to the language in form of new classes: observers, periodical executers, Ajax requests, extensions to DOM objects.<BR/><BR/>Prototype is more low-level, compared to jQuery. You can write jQuery equivalent on top of Prototype, but you can't do vise versa.<BR/><BR/>So, those who just want some bells and whistles and/or are too new to javascript to understand it and write in it - those use jQuery. But those who do some serious client-side programming in javascript will definitely like using Prototype.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272049513122973998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post-36106768298734949132008-05-01T02:04:00.000+04:002008-05-01T02:04:00.000+04:00Hi,For what it's worth, the Explorer at DojoCampus...Hi,<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, the Explorer at DojoCampus is a pretty good overview of what is available as far as components for Dojo, though the comparison in the previous blog was based more on core functionality. Feel free to contact me if you'd like more direct commentary on specifics.<BR/><BR/>http://dojocampus.org/explorer/ <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Peter Higgins<BR/>dante at dojotoolkit dottt orgdante hickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293117037865588164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post-47901050764157072008-04-30T21:18:00.000+04:002008-04-30T21:18:00.000+04:00Just a few corrections:jQuery's load syntax does n...Just a few corrections:<BR/><BR/>jQuery's load syntax does not require the "&" string concat. You do:<BR/><BR/>$("selector").load("url", {key: "value", key2: "value2"})<BR/><BR/>Additionally, all of your comparisons that showed that Prototype supports similar syntax should have been done with $$ and #invoke, as the jQuery variant supports selectors and automatic looping with its $ selector.<BR/><BR/>I have posted a more exhaustive analysis of the importance of an all-around philosophy, and not just tacked-on feature that are capable of emulating jQuery-like syntax at the original post. It might be interesting to you. <BR/><BR/>Also, I would check out the documentation for jQuery at http://docs.jquery.com/Main_Page, which contains full API documentation.<BR/><BR/>Finally, this conversation has left out what is perhaps the most important differentiating factor. Prototype overrides native objects and adds new global variables, which makes it much more difficult to use with other non-Prototype code. That isn't always a consideration, but when it is, it's very difficult to deal with.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16613294016855448316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25445709.post-17093869437932872462008-04-30T18:31:00.000+04:002008-04-30T18:31:00.000+04:00Thanks for your input on this discussion. I think...Thanks for your input on this discussion. I think, now that you've pointed these things out, that the main weakness in Prototype / Scriptaculous is less-than-adequate documentation. I have the hardest time getting it to do what I want, when it seems so much clearer in libraries like jQuery and mooTools that have good documentation.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I appreciate your experiences. Thanks!Duane Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05018718028789144349noreply@blogger.com