There are a few things i wouldn't mind raising though such as load times as i find it interesting that they say mootools takes longer to load in the browser. Is that a result of the way things like Element are extended?
I would have to agree about the UI side of things and that jQuery has more UI stuff available, but then i would say that it is because mootools is a developers framework, and that jQuery is a designers framework who don't really know how to develop that plug-ins on their own which is why they use jQuery. This by point negates the point of jQuery having an official UI library. However it would be nice to have some core UI components like resizable/dragable modal windows and resizable layout APIs. I would though disagree with the points that mootools is more confusing and that it is harder to learn than jQuery. From the tutorials i have seen on the jQuery site, the syntax is actually more complicated and less "sexy" as the author puts it. -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Florence [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2011 3:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Moo] Silly Debait I wasted some time on a rebuttal, he probably won't approve the comment though. On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:11 AM, hazlema wrote: > Its not my goal to downplay jQuery or say Mootools is better, they are > just different. But this artical why jQuery is better is just the > funniest thing I have ever read (or close to it). > > http://www.jquery4u.com/articles/jquery-mootools/ > > I really like reason #2. > jQuery is less confusing than Mootools! > It has less native extensions (including element) - jQuery has about a > dozen for Array, Object, and String and Mootools has about six dozen > for Array, Object, String, Function, and Number. > > While I can't argue the point of jQuery being easier to pickup, easier > does not mean better.. Is Visual Basic better then C++ because its > easier? However by giving you less functionality jQuery is somehow > better.
