> I don't see how defending frameworks with lower code quality is a better use of a "dead" mailing list
That's a wishy-washy claim :D > I don't know how long you've been developing. I won't bother filling you in. > Moo is what it is. And like other dominant crapware like VB and (in many ways) PHP, jQuery is what it is. Wow, the troll is strong with you. Enjoy the holidays. - JDD On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't see how defending frameworks with lower code quality is a better > use of a "dead" mailing list. If you're in the jQuery camp, there's no need > to come here and flog Moo ; the unsubscribe instructions are easy to find. > The discussion, anyway, is about jQuery's rise well before its supposed > improvement, and you and I know that rise didn't happen because it was > better, it happened because web designers could get it (mostly) and it fit > with their hope that they wouldn't have to learn to -- eek --program. > > If you haven't encountered the "old crowd" hanging out on otherwise idle > mailing lists yet, I don't know how long you've been developing. The same > happens with all kinds of software, and trolling a defense of a more > successful product isn't necessary. We get it. > > P.S. There are enough outstanding PRs (are some of them yours?) that it's > clear that Moo needs to be forked, not updated. I myself use > mini-frameworks and functional programming more now. Moo is what it is. And > like other dominant crapware like VB and (in many ways) PHP, jQuery is what > it is. You don't change something's quality by touting its improvement: > Rick Ross is a much better MC than he used to be, and Miley can sing a > little now, but they're still popular crap. > > > *From: *John-David Dalton > *Sent: *Tuesday, December 24, 2013 16:15 > *To: *[email protected] > *Reply To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *Re: [Moo] jQuery venting ! > > > jQuery is BY FAR the crappiest Big Thing in circulation right now, > > I think you've been away from it for a while. jQuery has great browser > support and activity. It's also pushing adoption of newer JS features by > being modern first in their 2.0 and allowing smaller builds w/ custom > builds to boot. > > I get that you have a problem with it's API, but its support, activity, > community involvement is top notch (they even have TC39 representation). > Instead of venting on jQuery to a dead mailing list you could try > contributing to MooTools or jQuery to make them better, maybe get MooTools > to version bump to support IE11 while you're at it. > > - JDD > > > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > The decline of MooTools rests on the MooTools core devs and no one >> > else. >> >> Yep, it is/was principally an internal problem (including the >> community as well) but I think you're whitewashing if you think >> Microsoft didn't buttress jQuery *in part* because jQ couldn't >> possibly compete design-wise with their OO product lines. >> >> Every .NET dev I know accepts that jQuery must be "good enough" if >> Microsoft chose it. Yet jQuery is "bad enough" that it keeps them from >> being compelled by native JavaScript and JS developer-focused >> frameworks; it keeps them thinking JS is basically what the world >> thought it was in 1995. And that belief keeps them away from building >> single-page clients against Node.JS, for example. >> >> Think about Microsoft actively embracing PHP over Python. And I'm a >> huge PHP guy, but I don't think that was _solely_ because PHP is the >> dominant language of the web; it also protects their products, because >> PHP will rarely be compelling to an experienced .NET dev (except maybe >> for selected tiny projects). >> >> Trust me, it's not "Microsoft's fault" that Moo is where it is, but >> nothing happens in a vacuum. jQuery is BY FAR the crappiest Big Thing >> in circulation right now, and just so happens to be embraced by the >> once-leaders in ensuring that crappy Big Things spread far and wide. >> Like the conspiracy freaks like to retort, "So you're a coincidence >> theorist?" :] >> >> -- Sandy >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MooTools Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MooTools Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MooTools Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MooTools Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
