Stewart, there are a lot of ways for you to get involved with MooTools. Rather than telling you what to go do, you should look at the things that need doing and apply yourself. Do a few useful things and we'll invite you to the dev list to join in the conversations about what we're building and you can get more involved.
If you want to code, go look at the open bugs and fork the library and submit fixes to them (the bugs are in lighthouse) - if you do this, you should probably focus on -more, as -core is under heavy development for 2.0. If you want to contribute to the 2.0 codebase, you'll have to fork kamicane's branch. If you want to augment documentation, the same thing; just go fork the libraries and add detail if you think there is any missing. If you wanted to, you could blog about MooTools and write tutorials about how to do things with it. The more people posting things the better. We also have the MooTools plugin forge coming out very, very, very soon, so if you have plugins you'd like to contribute, you can start preparing them; writing docs and demos for them and so on. Finally, if none of these things are of interest to you, you could go through the mootorial (http://mootorial.com/wiki) and update it; I haven't had time to update all the stuff for MooTools 1.2.2 and 1.2.3. Also, most of the plugins in -more are not represented there (though many are in the old clientcide wiki, though the syntax examples there are out of date). Aaron On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Stewart Mckinney <[email protected]>wrote: > Aaron, > > I have some free time if you need someone to write some documentation or do > a little article writing. I promise I will be more couth. ;) > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Xandros <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I wasn't questioning the stuff that's coming and its great quality ! >> >> On Sep 5, 1:05 am, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ...we could/should do a better job of publicizing all the projects we >> have >> > in progress... >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Christoph Pojer >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > 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 >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more ยป > > >
