On Sep 27, 5:35 pm, Gregory Seidman <gsslist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And yet, this is a problem. Prototype should strive to be as good as jQuery
> in terms of convenience for non-programmers. It isn't even difficult. A
> good part of the simplicity of jQuery comes from the $() function returning
> a "set" object that has a number of convenience methods for attaching event
> handlers, hiding and showing, etc. to all of the returned elements. I
> suspect that it would take very little to implement the same methods and
> attach them to the array returned by Prototype's $$() function. I'm going
> to work on it today.
I agree that we should probably have a custom type for HTML result
sets, but I don't subscribe to the axiom that we should necessarily
appeal to non-programmers. Obviously we try to make things intuitive,
but our definition of "intuitive" tends to mean "fills in blanks in
the DOM API" or "behaves like it does in Ruby."
Part of why jQuery is so popular is that it's insular and internally
consistent, but intentionally doesn't aim to "blend in" like we do. So
it appeals to web designers who are just getting into browser-based JS
and don't have existing mental templates for how these things should
be structured.
In other words, I we should make Prototype as simple as possible given
the design choices we've made. But we shouldn't try to out-jQuery
jQuery.
Cheers,
Andrew
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
