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
> 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,
> I might have got it a tad wrong, but i hope you get the idea of what i
> am trying to say.
> 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
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
compatible expressive power.
don't believe me, compare Dojo code to jQuery code and see for
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 <%=
> 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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at