[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
excellent development tools for Mochikit, can you elucidate more this would be a very useful, discussion for js devs thanks for your great input guys Sam Sutch wrote: I agree with Bob. I'm still not a fan of prototype, though. Dojo is good for some things. It doesn't seem to be targeted at small projects. It's more targeted along the lines of a large javascript-based application. For example, an OS: https://www.youos.com/ uses Dojo extensively. Dojo is so large, in fact, MochiKit can be used /within/ Dojo, just to give you some perspective. I say java-thonic, or dot.net-thonic because it /is/ quite large and daunting to get started with. It's probably *not* best for small to small-medium sized projects. MochiKit, on the other hand is, as I said, mucho pythonic. I, personally, LOVE it. MochiKit does what it claims to do, and that's make javascript suck less. It includes iterators, functional programming concepts (partial, etc...), deferred from Twisted, Color from Cocoa, DOM manipulation that /doesn't/ suck, excellent development tools, insanely good documentation [...]. There are others that some people seem to like, such as JQuery. I don't know anything about it other than it seems to be a big buzzword whore. Also, Scriptaculious (sp?) and Rico, which seems to take after Dojo to an extent (widgets and such), both based on Prototype. Dojo and Rico try to give you a simpleish to use Widget and allow you to customize it, /to an extent/. MochiKit tries to say, here, javascript doesn't suck now so it really isn't _that_ hard. -Sam On 8/15/06, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be fair, the right answer is that it really depends on what you want to do. You shouldn't pick a toolkit before you have a use for it. -bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
MochiKit - mucho pythonic. Dojo - mucho... javathonic. Prototype - mucho... poor implementation. -Sam --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
To be fair, the right answer is that it really depends on what you want to do. You shouldn't pick a toolkit before you have a use for it. -bob On 8/15/06, samuraisam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MochiKit - mucho pythonic. Dojo - mucho... javathonic. Prototype - mucho... poor implementation. -Sam --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
I agree with Bob. I'm still not a fan of prototype, though. Dojo is good for some things. It doesn't seem to be targeted at small projects. It's more targeted along the lines of a large javascript-based application. For example, an OS: https://www.youos.com/ uses Dojo extensively. Dojo is so large, in fact, MochiKit can be used /within/ Dojo, just to give you some perspective. I say java-thonic, or dot.net-thonic because it /is/ quite large and daunting to get started with. It's probably *not* best for small to small-medium sized projects. MochiKit, on the other hand is, as I said, mucho pythonic. I, personally, LOVE it. MochiKit does what it claims to do, and that's make javascript suck less. It includes iterators, functional programming concepts (partial, etc...), deferred from Twisted, Color from Cocoa, DOM manipulation that /doesn't/ suck, excellent development tools, insanely good documentation [...]. There are others that some people seem to like, such as JQuery. I don't know anything about it other than it seems to be a big buzzword whore. Also, Scriptaculious (sp?) and Rico, which seems to take after Dojo to an extent (widgets and such), both based on Prototype. Dojo and Rico try to give you a simpleish to use Widget and allow you to customize it, /to an extent/. MochiKit tries to say, here, javascript doesn't suck now so it really isn't _that_ hard. -Sam On 8/15/06, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be fair, the right answer is that it really depends on what you want to do. You shouldn't pick a toolkit before you have a use for it. -bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
Scriptaculous is an effects library only, not a toolkit. It includes some really amazing, easy-to-use eye candy.DougOn 8/15/06, Sam Sutch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I agree with Bob. I'm still not a fan of prototype, though. Dojo is good for some things. It doesn't seem to be targeted at smallprojects. It's more targeted along the lines of a large_javascript_-based application. For example, an OS: https://www.youos.com/ uses Dojo extensively. Dojo is so large, infact, MochiKit can be used /within/ Dojo, just to give you someperspective. I say java-thonic, or dot.net-thonic because it /is/quite large and daunting to get started with. It's probably *not* best for small to small-medium sized projects.MochiKit, on the other hand is, as I said, mucho pythonic. I,personally, LOVE it. MochiKit does what it claims to do, and that'smake _javascript_ suck less. It includes iterators, functional programming concepts (partial, etc...), deferred from Twisted, Colorfrom Cocoa, DOM manipulation that /doesn't/ suck, excellentdevelopment tools, insanely good documentation [...].There are others that some people seem to like, such as JQuery. I don't know anything about it other than it seems to be a big buzzwordwhore. Also, Scriptaculious (sp?) and Rico, which seems to take afterDojo to an extent (widgets and such), both based on Prototype. Dojo and Rico try to give you a simpleish to use Widget and allow you tocustomize it, /to an extent/. MochiKit tries to say, here, _javascript_doesn't suck now so it really isn't _that_ hard.-Sam On 8/15/06, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be fair, the right answer is that it really depends on what you want to do. You shouldn't pick a toolkit before you have a use for it. -bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
On 8/15/06, Doug Woos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scriptaculous is an effects library only, not a toolkit. It includes some really amazing, easy-to-use eye candy. Doug Oh, really? Sortable lists, drag-drop facilities, DOM utilities, ajax utilities (some of which rode in with prototype, albeit), autocomplete etc... By calling it simply an effects library would almost be calling Rico the same thing. http://wiki.script.aculo.us/scriptaculous/tags/controls http://wiki.script.aculo.us/scriptaculous/tags/utils -Sam --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[TurboGears] Re: js options - required input
On 8/15/06, Sam Sutch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, really? Sortable lists, drag-drop facilities, DOM utilities, ajax utilities (some of which rode in with prototype, albeit), autocomplete etc... By calling it simply an effects library would almost be calling Rico the same thing. I think the idea is that there's a design difference between dojo, yui, google toolkit, mochikit, prototype, zimbra and scriptaculous, moofx (hrmph...library), PlotKit, etc. The former are used primarily to build behavior while the latter are used primarily to add flash or 'ajaxy goodness' to otherwise complete apps. Or at least that's how I associate them. I think that scriptaculous is starting to push the boundary with some of the new features but it retains most of its roots as the frosting layer on the webapp cake. I personally use MochiKit with the scriptaculous port (in the SVN repo) and dip into dojo when I know I'm going to have a use for the IO, history control, or events utilities it provides. And dojo is mucho javathonic but that only mildly diminishes its awesomeness. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TurboGears group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
