Hey I think too much replies are focused on the original article by that barking dog, youre right. I maybe should have made my first post clearer on that topic. i didnt want to as you what you think of the guy, but more about the subject Aaron spoke about. Complexification, its reasons & implications and visions of mootools future :)
speaking of, it looks very bright to me, and in the end its what matters ! On Sep 5, 12:30 pm, bluff <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
