Thanks to all who responded. I'm already
impressed by the bright and active community rallying around this thing. For
that reason, and because it makes my code look so gosh darned pretty, I'm leaning
toward jQuery at this point.
Oh yeah, and also because of the Devo hat
logo. It just does it for me. Hey John, if you ever get tired of the "New
Wave _javascript_" tagline, how about "Whip Your Scripts Into Shape"?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Matt Stith
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006
4:54 PM
To: jQuery Discussion.
Subject: Re: [jQuery] jQuery vs
Prototype
Im with Jonathan on this
one. jQuery is the only library ive ever used, and its done everything ive ever
needed.
On 8/16/06, Jonathan
Sharp <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would agree with Corey. We've been using jquery in a large scale
application. We evaluated jquery and prototype a while back but were forced to
start prototyping ui's quickly and so we picked jquery and figured we'd
re-evaluate when implementation began.
We've never re-evaluated since there has never been a need. We went from the
prototype to implementation phase faster than planned and have been able to
develop robust components with amazing speed. (One example of a component is http://jdsharp.us/code/jd_Menu/jd_Menu.html)
I can't speak to prototype since I haven't used it extensively, so let's just
say that jquery has never given me a reason to look anywhere else.
Great work John!
On 8/16/06, Corey
Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You'd be surprised at how much functionality jQuery packs into such a
small package. I used to use prototype, but I've switched to jQuery
completely.
Maybe the largest piece of functionality you'll give up is access to
some of the other stuff that leverages prototype (e.g.
scriptaculous). However jQuery has a thriving plugin community that's
rapidly expanding the quite of bolt-on goodness.
My main reason for switching to jQuery is it's terseness and
expressiveness. The chainable method strategy often results in being
50-75% shorter code than equivalent prototype code. There's some
examples documenting this phenomena on the jQuery blog. For me
terser, more expressive code is not only more productive, but more
readable and easier to debug.
Corey
On Aug 16, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Menier, Todd wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm new to this mailing list and have recently begun the process of
> evaluating jQuery. After looking at a wide variety of _javascript_/
> Ajax
libraries, I've narrowed my choices down to jQuery and
> Prototype. Though I understand there's nothing stopping me from
> using both, there's lots of overlapping functionality from what I
> can tell and I'd prefer to pick one as my primary solution.
>
>
>
> I'm having a hard time finding good information that directly
> compares the 2 libraries. I assume the in exchange for the much
> smaller file size, I'd be giving up a good deal of functionality by
> going with jQuery. I've begun going through what documentation and
> articles do exist in an attempt to put my own comparison together,
> but I was wondering if anyone who has experience with both
> libraries could provide a broad overview of their main differences?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Todd
>
> _______________________________________________
> jQuery mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://jquery.com/discuss/
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
|
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
[email protected]
http://jquery.com/discuss/
