Ah...I gotcha. You're probably right, I was most likely mixing up my libraries.
-----Original Message----- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eridius Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:42 AM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: Why jQuery over Mootools Well this is true and not true. Mootools is based on Moo.fx which might have been around much longer than jQuery but Mootools i believe was released a few months after jQuery. Mootools is largely based off or Moo.fx(and prototype/jQuery) Andy Matthews-4 wrote: > > > Actually, I believe that Moo Tools has been around for quite a bit > longer than jQuery. It was one of the first effects libraries I looked > at before I ever even heard of jQuery. > > -----Original Message----- > From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Eridius > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:37 PM > To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com > Subject: [jQuery] Why jQuery over Mootools > > > > I have been working with mootools for a bit the past few months and > started to take a look at jQuery too see what the hype is all about > from what i have heard from a co-worker. From what i see, jQuery does > not offer anything that mootools does not. I mean jQuery does have > > $().click > > and i don't believe Mootools has anything like that, they just have the: > > $().addEvent('click', function(){}); > > However this is just a shortcut and not a major thing. On thing that > jQuery has is that there are far more scripts however this is just to > the fact that jQuery has been around longer than mootools. However on > the other hand mootools has is a very nice way to create new classes. > All i have to do > is: > > var ajax_request = new Class( > { > options: > { > //class options > }; > > initialize: function(options) > { > this.setOptions(options); > //other initliaizing code > }; > > //more methods > }); > ajax_request.implement(Options); > > var my_ajax_request = new ajax_request({//override default options}); > my_ajax_request.process(); > > Now I have been told that jQuery tries to do things more like the OO > method. Well to me the basically thing about OO is being able to > combine > members(variables) and methods(functions) into a common > place(class/object). > > I have tried creating a simple class with jQuery and it does not > work(this code if based off what i was told from these forums): > > var ajax_request = function(options) > { > ajax_options = > { > test: 'test' > }; > > test = function() > { > alert(this.test); > } > } > var test = new ajax_request(); > test.test(); > > and this code tells me that test() is not a function of test. It > seems that jQuery wants you to incorporate everything into the $() > selector which does not make sense of everything. Being able create > separate object is something that is important to me and jQuery does > not seem to support that. > > Another thing that that jQuery says is that is it so small. Well > comparing the full version of mootools(all options selected) to the > full version of jQuery is unfair. In order to get allt he features of > full mootools you would have to add jQuery interface script and > comparing mootools to jQuery&Interface script, mootools is still > smaller. > > So why should someone choose jQuery over Mootools or is it really just > a preference thing and and both are basically the same(i see a lot > about jQuery vs prototype but not alot about jQuery vs mootools) > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Why-jQuery-over-Mootools-tf4254982s15494.html#a1 > 210968 > 0 > Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-jQuery-over-Mootools-tf4254982s15494.html#a1212641 2 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
