Good point. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stewart, while your defense of MooTools is heartfelt and appreciated, this > is precisely the reaction that someone like Marsh is after. Actually > debating his comments line by line just wastes your time. I don't think any > of his criticisms really merit comment. Just saying that he's not worth the > time is all we need here and then we move on. I'd hate to see this thread > turn into a long ranging debate on the value of his rant. > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Stewart Mckinney <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm going to chime in because I agree with Aaron. Thanks Aaron. You are >> pretty awesome, and the mooTools community deserves a lot more respect than >> this. >> >> This article don't even seem to understand the source code. This critique >> is ... not even a critique. To be honest, it's a little insulting if you are >> a mooTools developer and have been working with it for quite some time (2 >> years here). I wouldn't even give this guy two legs to stand on. This is >> total flame bait. This guy is angry and has too much time on his hands. Good >> thing I've got a little of my own (woo creative blocks!). >> >> Listen to this part. >> * >> * >> *function $chk(obj){ >> return !!(obj || obj === 0); >> }; >> >> Try to guess what that's for. Then wonder how it came to be called >> "$chk".* >> >> I don't mean to be a know-it-all but that's in the first line of the >> documentation. If you click "Docs", the definition for $chk is the first >> that comes up. You can not miss it. This guy literally just looked at the >> source code without looking at the design specifications. That is not the >> appropriate way to judge or criticize a framework, and I see it happen all >> of the time. Unfortunately I don't understand why one who loves to post >> rambling invectives on a forum would also have an aversion to the English >> language, but hey, I've seen stranger things in my life. >> >> It isn't taking into account the full architecture of the source code, so >> it doesn't and analyze the higher-level design decisions - which would be an >> intelligent discussion that I might be interested in. All this article does >> is analyze each function bit by bit, in a piecemeal fashion, and then >> criticizes syntax decisions such as using "chk" over "check" and overuse of >> the "$" method(? he calls it a method?!?!). It's used stylistically as a >> marker for certain functions which can be called in the global scope...for >> the love of all that is sacred...and he beats that drum over and over as if >> it were some great sin. Listen to this fresh hell: >> >> *They are aping the initial effort of a >> **Javascript*<http://www.developersdex.com/asp/message.asp?p=2978&r=6521331#> >> * programmer who >> obviously hadn't yet learned Javascript. Note the incessant use of >> "$" as well as the "initialize" method.* >> >> What the !...@#!@#...@# is that? I love initialize! Honestly, what is with >> that >> unwarranted smug tone? And we have here the very height of ignorance in his >> commentary: >> * >> * >> *function $type(obj){ >> if (obj == undefined) return false; >> if (obj.$family) return (obj.$family.name == 'number' && !isFinite >> (obj)) ? false : obj.$family.name; >> if (obj.nodeName){ >> switch (obj.nodeType){ >> case 1: return 'element'; >> case 3: return (/\S/).test(obj.nodeValue) ? 'textnode' : >> 'whitespace'; >> } >> } else if (typeof obj.length == 'number'){ >> if (obj.callee) return 'arguments'; >> else if (obj.item) return 'collection'; >> } >> return typeof obj; >> }; >> >> I don't know what this is supposed to be, but I don't like it. And >> something tells me the whole script hinges on it.* >> * >> * >> Please. "I don't know what this is supposed to be, but I don't like it." I >> need to go get my crosses and garlic, because apparently I've been using a >> framework that has MONSTERS hidden in it. Whoa. >> >> He mentions mooTools breaking with "older agents"? Please. I've never seen >> it happen for any browser mooTools claims to support. >> >> This guy doesn't even't even talk about (because they are awesome and he >> is a hater): >> >> 1) Classes ( Which is what MooTools does very nicely. Make lots of >> Classes. You will never ever look back. ) >> 2) Method Chaining ( I love this too. It's like harmony has returned to my >> thinking. ) >> 3) An (almost) completely encapsulated namespace. Projects RARELY collide. >> That is a huge boon >> 4) Extending classes is easy, and Implementing is great too, and it all >> works pretty well with Options and Events and having all of that integrated >> is very very nice indeed. >> 5) The performance benefits you get out of extending classes in the >> fashion that mooTools prompts because of the way Javascript is structured as >> a language. This guy doesn't even seem to understand the structure of a >> prototypical inheritance language, for being an expert on the subject. >> >> Sorry if I kick start any flame war here everybody, but this guy is >> completely rambling (I'm sure you noticed), and I read his post and I got >> angry because people who have no respect for the (freeeeeeely given) efforts >> of others just happen to get underneath my skin. Honestly without open >> source and communities like mooTools I would not be able to do what I do >> today. I'm not going to engage him directly on any level because frankly I >> feel he would probably not hear it, and I will absolutely end up with a >> headache and the need to go for a jog. However, I would like to inform the >> mooTools community that in my opinion, this post and the discussion that >> follows are both garbage. >> >> mooTools rocks. I would dare say my enjoyment of it goes beyond just a >> professional level - its actually fun to use. It's nice having tools that >> are fun to use, tyvm. >> >> ( nothing personal, Xandros ;) ) >> >> -end >> >> >> >> I don't think you could change the mind of that guy, >>> personaly I won't waste my time trying to convince him. >>> >>> [?] >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Xandros <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> Not wanting to start a flame war, and using myself mootools for a >>>> while, I stumbled on that thread on a developer forum. >>>> A quite harsh critique of Mootools, but the general idea is true, >>>> since the 0.7 versions or so, the low level classes and functions of >>>> Mootools are getting bigger and more and more complicated with lots of >>>> strange code that is dependant on a lot of other strange code, and in >>>> the end we just get the same behaviour as before, enhanced a bit of >>>> course. >>>> >>>> I would really love some Mootools developers to answer here what they >>>> think about this analysis of the code and why ... everybody has got >>>> something to learn from constructive discussion I think ... >>>> >>>> http://www.developersdex.com/asp/message.asp?p=2978&r=6521331 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://tbela99.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> fax : (+33) 08 26 51 94 51 >>> >> >> >
<<35F.gif>>
