I just instructed him to read Beating the Averages :) http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html (it's a long article, so skim right to The Blub Paradox if you feel lazy)
Exactly as Sean says (and Paul Graham too), knowing the more popular language/DSL doesn't guarantee you will get the best job available. On my personal experience, I landed my current job by claiming extensive knowledge of MooTools and vanilla Javascript, while specially stating that I knew very little about jQuery. They didn't think it twice, I got hired right away (and I've been working on a fully jQuery-driven project for the last 5 months). On Feb 25, 7:45 pm, Sean McArthur <[email protected]> wrote: > There might be more job listings, but there are also far more people > claiming to be proficient with jQuery, and thus more "competition". > > Personally, simply saying one knows jQuery wouldn't make me feel very > confident. > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Ryan Florence <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Dude doesn't know what loading means. > > > His graph is selector performance ... he's an idiot. > > > On Feb 25, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Steve Onnis wrote: > > > > 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.
