To make it a bit easier: feel free to contact me ( contact info: http://cpojer.net/page/About ) and I'll guide you through
On Sep 5, 3:05 am, 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. > > ... > > read more »
