On Feb 18, 3:05 pm, "Martin Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why cant prototype have elegant code and optimised code. I'm not
> talking about milliseconds of optimisation, even i am not that
> machocistic.
> But when a function gets so much use like setStyle, should
> asthetically pleasing code give way to optimisations to save seconds
> or even minutes.
> Code can still 'look good' and be fast.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. Both Mislav and I have
acknowledged that Element.setStyle does not perform as well as it
could.  On top of which it's not very "pretty" to begin with.

> Slightly OT, but to Douglas Crockford said something on the lines of,
> javascript has emense expressive power which allows you to make
> javascript feel like any other language. But instead of trying to make
> javascript something it isnt, use it for what it is.
> I might have got it a tad wrong, but i hope you get the idea of what i
> am trying to say.
> When i write javascript i write it so that it is beautiful javascript.
> Not beautiful java, python or ruby.
> [...]
> Can't prototype.js be elegant without it looking like ruby code?

>From almost the beginning, Prototype's philosophy has been to make
JavaScript feel Rubyish. If this bothers you, you're using the wrong

I don't feel that Prototype makes JavaScript into "something it
isn't," though. I don't feel that any of Prototype's Rubyish qualities
are gratuitous or tacked-on. I think that Prototype is successful as a
framework because Ruby and JavaScript have compatible philosophies and
compatible expressive power.

Put another way, JavaScript is a "multi-paradigm" language.  If you
don't believe me, compare Dojo code to jQuery code and see for
yourself. To make JavaScript into "something it isn't" would be to
shackle it within the confines of a less dynamic language like Java.

> i would guess 99% of the people who use the prototype library dont
> care about the innards, they infact dont even realise prototype
> exists, most users (i.e RoR users) just have <%=
> javascript_includes :defaults %>
> and dont look any further than that.

Even if this were true, I don't understand why that vast majority
should influence the coding style of Prototype.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to