How did i manage to edit the topic subject? Wasn't intentional, since this is OT from the user assistance intent... Odd. -jt
On Mar 14, 9:46 pm, "joe t." <thooke...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another anecdote along with Jane's... i make a lot of comparisons to > jQuery as well because it's the only other library i've gotten > familiar with. > > i still really like Prototype's robust set of utility & data storage > functions. i get wary of storing data directly on elements > [jQuery.data()] and sometimes it's simply not appropriate to do so, so > having Prototype's pseudo-class structure to drive the overall > functionality of a page is very helpful, because i can create "class" > members and manage data there, rather than in the HTML area of the > DOM. Classes really helped me build complex JS applications when i was > still brand new to application-style Javascript & AJAX. > > That said, Prototype is bloated, and doesn't play nice with others. > Scriptaculous is old, just as bloated, and i think 1 or 2 lines of > code have been updated in the last year, to provide Pt 1.7 > compatibility. Plus Scriptaculous doesn't provide an actual UI, just > some enhanced visual effects & other tools. And you have to be careful > of a lot of gotchas in those effects because Scriptaculous doesn't > wrap your code into HTML & object references that it will need to make > those effects work. jQuery's UI does that. One of the bigger > advantages of Scriptaculous is Builder. i much prefer creating HTML > through a node/tree structure than slapping an HTML string into an > element. However, someone went and built a jQuery plugin to do what > Builder does. /shrug > > i've noted elsewhere in this group that i don't like that there are > several aliases for many of Prototype's functions, most of which are > unnecessary Rails translations for otherwise sensible names. i get > that it's supposed to help Rails devs use Prototype efficiently, so > why not just keep only the Rails versions of functions and drop the > aliases? jQuery tends to provide one way to do a lot of things. > Prototype tends to provide a lot of ways to do one thing. > > i didn't like jQuery at first for all the reasons i stated above for > liking Prototype. Once i got the hang of the major differences & > slight syntax variations, i've found it to really save time in a lot > of ways. Granted, i also haven't built any huge application-level code > using jQuery yet, but i feel like i could now that i understand the > inner workings better. Jane mentioned event handling. i can go either > way with that. Prototype's Function#bind makes it easy to incorporate > the Class object into an event handler, but you lose context of the > element unless you use Event#findElement. And i really like Event#on, > but haven't done any heavy lifting with Prototype since 1.7 was > released. So jQuery's handlers work fine for me. > > i've also never developed with Rails, and maybe because of that i > don't feel a particular loyalty. i want the right tool for the job at > hand, and lately that has been jQuery. Especially the ease of using > plugins for "missing" functionality, and the UI library which amazes > me. > > But to address your actual question: Why has traffic died down in this > group? > > My personal observation would be that jQuery has simply gained > traction over the last couple years. Prototype... i don't know. Kinda > feels stale, neglected, and maybe a bit stuck in its ways? It seems > like there's a lot of push to make JS libraries cooperate with each > other so you can get the best each has to offer, yet Prototype can't > get itself away from modifying native objects, which forces everyone > else to provide safety schemes to accommodate. Also, where most > libraries provide compression-safe code, Prototype stays pretty rotund > at ~160K. Add Scriptaculous and you can hit 1MB of library before you > get to any of your own code. > > In spite of criticisms, i don't want this to feel like a slam against > Prototype. Obviously i still get something out of it or i'd drop my > subscription to the groups. But you ask why the traffic has slowed to > a crawl, and that's my opinion: Prototype itself has also slowed down. > Check the dev group if you don't believe me (http://groups.google.com/ > group/prototype-core/topics?hl=en&gvc=2). Two legitimate threads with > posts in 2011, and those being about bugs, not additional development. > > So there's my $0.02+... i feel your frustration, though. > -joe t. > > On Mar 14, 1:53 pm, Walter Lee Davis <wa...@wdstudio.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the rant, but I came to Prototype by way of early > > exploration with Rails. I found Prototype approachable and learn-able > > in a way that I didn't (and don't) find jQuery to be. > > > I've invested years in learning Prototype and it has trained and > > patterned my JavaScript brain. I'm quite cheesed about the notion of > > having to learn another way to look at JavaScript. > > > At the same time, I can't help but notice the <crickets> around here > > lately. When I joined this list (back in the rails-spinoff days) there > > were dozens of posts per day, now we're lucky to get there in a week. > > > What the heck is going on here? > > > Walter -- 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 prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
