Believe me, MooTools has never been more active, there are so many things going on behind the scenes. Just sit back, wait a little longer and you'll be pleasently surprised by all the cool stuff that is coming up.
On Sep 4, 11:26 pm, Xandros <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all > > Thanks for your reply Aaron. > > I've been following mootools since its very beginning and am totally > pro-mootools. so, not being totally dumb i got it right away that that > guy is just someone who likes to bitch about other's work. I'm didnt > want to start discussing his precise person / style / comments but the > general idea he brought up about frameworks and mootols in particular. > the answer Aaron gave is what I expected. It is not garbage to discuss > design and implementation choices, that's the only thing the post was > about in the first place. I'm using mootools a lot and have > introduced its usage in every project i'm working on at my job, so > apart from being a mootools enthusiast personally I also feel > concerned about its future evolution. I didnt really mean there was > some useless code in the library, but that I wanted to know a little > bit more about the dev's choices and plans for the future regarding > the complexification of some areas ... > > On Sep 4, 6:01 pm, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > actually, I do agree, $chk is really not that useful. > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Christoph Pojer > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Although, $chk should really have been return obj != null; But it is > > > not needed in mootools 2.0 anyway :) > > > > On Sep 4, 12:59 am, Stewart Mckinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > < 1KViewDownload
