On 9/5/07, Jeff Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ultimately, this and several other topics come down to the fact that
> Prototype is the JavaScript library for Ruby programmers. This isn't
> bad, it's just something that non-Ruby coders like myself have to come
> to grips with.

We can't help being influenced by the Ruby language. It's just darn
beautiful :)

Prototype prefers method names like uniq rather than
> unique, for no other reason than its Ruby heritage.

A name had to be picked. If it was "unique" then we would have thousands of
Rails developers on our back crying that this breaks POLS (principle of
least surprise) for them. Don't forget that Prototype is originally a Ruby
on Rails spinoff - it isn't restricted to the framework (you can use it in
PHP, .NET, Java ...), but if we need to pick a set of conventions, it would
be Ruby's. Sam did, and we followed. It feels right.

Yeah, "unique" would be nicer for half of the users. One half guesses right
and others simply refer to the API documentation. No big loss.

> constructs like $w which serve no purpose other than as a syntactic
> sugar sprinkled on top make the Ruby programmers feel at home - even
> if they do make the rest of us feel out of place.

Hm. We aren't enforcing $w, so if you don't have to use it in your code, how
does that make you feel "out of place"? I believe that with these
discussions we are just wasting each other's time and that we should
concentrate on real performance bottlenecks.

When JavaScript versions 1.7, 1.8 and 2.0 come cross-browser, I will use
their syntactic sugar. Until then, I'm happy with what we emulate currently
in the framework, and I really don't believe that much users mind.

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