Personally, an association between anything and microsoft makes me
less likely to want to use that bit of software/framework/library,
especially when it's associated with the horror that is ASP.net, but
then that's just a personal opinion ;-).

As long as I have assurances that Prototype will continue to be
developed I'm all over it like a fat kid is a cup cake. JQuery can
easily give you good javascript functionality on a page - but
prototype can very easily help you make a web page a web application
and for me that's where the internet's going.

So firstly I'd like to second solidhex in recommending Andrew Dupont's
book which is just absolutely fantastic.

Secondly I'd also like to offer my services to developing a better
prototype community. As T.J. points out, this isn't the thread for
that but when that appears I'll be all over that too.

On Sep 29, 2:22 am, Gregory Seidman <gsslist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 09:49:13PM -0700, Andrew Dupont wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure it matters now. See here:
>
> http://jquery.com/blog/2008/09/28/jquery-microsoft-nokia/
>
> Looks to me like jQuery has gained enough momentum that my time is better
> spent porting the Prototype functionality I want and need to jQuery. That
> makes me really unhappy, but that's how it seems to have turned out.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Andrew
>
> --Greg
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to