I've started "serious" javascript programming using prototype (including ajax). I found javascript programming with prototype fun and easy. Then I discovered jQuery. And then I found javascript programming with prototype long and boring.
I think the jQuery way is far more efficient and clean. Thanks to its powerful Dom query engine, it forces you to have all your javascript outside of your body, which 1 - is a very good practise because your code is more readable and maintainable. 2 - it's far more easier to make your scripts unobstrusive. Chainablility is the second best stuff I found in jQuery. 1- It allows you to write very compact while super-readable code 2 - It makes it very easy to understand the plugin mechanism and write yours. In other words, I won't use prototype anymore. But give it a try anyway (and try the others too) ! Le 28 mars 07 à 12:10, Sam Collett a écrit : > On 28/03/07, Jörn Zaefferer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Michel Brouckaert schrieb: >>> If you have more time and the project would be a really big one, i >>> would advice you to rather use Prototype. Class based designs mostly >>> only pay off in huge projects because of reusability. So at the >>> end of >>> the line I think it depends... >> I think reusing jQuery code by putting it in the form of plugins >> works >> great in "big" projects too. After all, a big project can only >> work if >> its carefully assembled of small parts. And those small parts can be >> jQuery plugins. >> >> Of course there are aspects, mostly domain-specific, that are not >> well >> represented as plugins. But I wouldn't implement those in >> JavaScript anyway. >> >> -- >> Jörn Zaefferer >> >> http://bassistance.de > > I think JavaScript is mostly use as a way to enhance the user > experience and reduce the load on the web server. Pages should not > rely on it to work. Although, to be honest, I have done a few pages > that need it, but the users are guaranteed to have it enabled (as > their either aren't many of them, or the application is used > internally). If you are providing information for a wide audience > (e.g. health related) then it certainly should not be a requirement as > I can imagine there would be issues with accessibility (for those > using alternative browsing methods or with JavaScript turned off). > > When I was initially looking at frameworks, Prototype was one of my > first choices, but the lack of documentation put me off. I'm also not > keen of the obtrusiveness that it encourages. Others (can't recall > which ones) did not look easy to use and / or a bit heavy weight (I > don't think Mootools even existed). > > I wonder what would have happened if jQuery was not created? Prototype > may never have been documented and JavaScript libraries in general > would not have been as good (competition helps to motivate people). > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
