Just a quick observation: A wise man once said 'If you stop to kick every dog that barks at you. You want get very far.'
If someone doesn't like MooTools, so what. If someone wants to trash MooTools so what. This is their right and everyone is entitled to their option albeit right or wrong. If one wants to use a JavaScript framework to speed up development great. If they don't great. It's all a matter of choice, we all choose want we want and how we want to do it. And people like this guy who wrote the article just need ignoring because the world doesn't need a negative attitude as we will never get anywhere choosing that route. Unite and be strong or divide and be conquered! Ignore and move on dude. On Sep 5, 8:31 am, Stewart Mckinney <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, cool. Thanks for the guiding lights. Btw, call me Stew. ;) > I'll be in touch. > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Christoph Pojer > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > 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. ) > > ... > > read more »
