I also nee optional parameter in 'observe' and 'on' methods to capture events
On 23 сен, 21:27, buda <www...@pochta.ru> wrote: > Thanks for the detailed post. > I myself have been using Prototype.js from the very beginning and its > ideology is close to me. > I'm anxious for the fate of the library - and therefore raised the > question > I would be pleased to help the project. but I do not know what and how > - the money that I earn in Ukraine, so small that they are not enough > for life to say nothing of assistance to the project:) > The only thing I could - to write what I feel right now must be > changed in the library. > > For example: > - would love to be able to collect a library, pointing out the > necessary functionality > - be able to "drop" support for older browsers and crossbrowsing > (modern browser now have the same functionality) > > Ready with pleasure to help develop the project - tell me how. > > On 23 ÓÅÎ, 20:34, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > I should have said: If you do decide to switch, beware that jQuery > > only covers about 3/4ths of the ground Prototype covers. It does all > > the DOM stuff, but doesn't do much of anything in terms of language > > enhancement. So no equivalent to `Class`, for example, nor any of the > > added methods on `Array`, `String`, or `Function`. (It does have a > > subset of those on offer, just not as extensions to the built-ins -- > > for instance, `jQuery.trim` rather than `String#strip`, `jQuery.proxy` > > rather than `Function#bind`). If you need a `Class`-like thing, I did > > one you might look > > at:http://blog.niftysnippets.org/2009/09/simple-efficient-supercalls-in.... > > > My main point being: jQuery is great, but its scope isn't as broad. In > > some ways that may be what you want with this ECMAScript5 stuff coming > > in -- or not. > > -- > > T.J. Crowder > > Independent Software Engineer > > tj / crowder software / com > > www / crowder software / com > > > On Sep 23, 5:19špm, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This was _JUST_ gone into, in > > > depth:http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous/browse_thread/... > > > > I think this is a fair-ish (but incomplete) summary: > > > > 1. Prototype is a spare-time activity for a very small number of > > > people. In fact, at the moment I think it's mostly just Andrew, and he > > > has other things he does (like, you know, hold down a full-time job). > > > Just recently the project largely lost another major contributor to > > > his job and family commitments. > > > > 2. Andrew has no plans to stop working on Prototype on any time soon. > > > > 3. Prototype work is done in fits and spurts, long periods of > > > inactivity followed by a period (couple of weeks) of feverish > > > activity. > > > > 4. jQuery has multiple corporate sponsors, not least Microsoft, and > > > there are people paid to work on it full time. Thus it's able to be > > > much more up-to-date and proactive than Prototype. > > > > A quote from Andrew in the thread linked above: > > > > On Aug 23, 1:07šam, Andrew Dupont <googlegro...@andrewdupont.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > I will say, though, that if we're crowning winners and losers, then > > > > jQuery "won" a long time ago. It is certainly the _de facto_ > > > > JavaScript library for web development. The good news is that the > > > > "losers" of the war aren't looking so bad; libraries like Prototype, > > > > MooTools, and Dojo still have loyal user bases, and I doubt they're > > > > going away. > > > > My personal perspective, for what it's worth (e.g., possibly exactly > > > what you're paying for it, nothing :-) ) is based on some data points: > > > > 1. The last blog post on the Prototype blog was 10 months ago. > > > > 2. The library has had basically no activity since v1.7 was released > > > November 2010. > > > > 3. The most recent three releases were: > > > š šv1.7 - November 2010 > > > š šv1.6.1 - September 2009 > > > š šv1.6.0.3 - September 2008 > > > > Three releases, in total, including "dot" releases, in the last three > > > years. Compare with 16 releases (four major ones) of jQuery in that > > > time period (v1.3 through v1.6.4). > > > > 4. Absolute use and trends: > > > > Absolute use:http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript > > > Prototype trend:http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/Prototype > > > jQuery trend:http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/JQuery > > > > 5. Questions tagged on StackOverflow: > > > > jQuery: š š114,842 > > > Prototype: š 2,152 > > > > ...which could, of course, just mean that Prototype is so much better > > > it generates fewer questions, or that people using Prototype don't use > > > StackOverflow, or that people are mis-tagging JavaScript questions > > > "jquery" (I see that a fair bit), or some combination of those. > > > > Does all this mean Prototype is dead? No, not a bit of it. But it has > > > a very small staff with other major demands on their time, and has no > > > funding. Andrew's quite clear that it's not dead, and also that it > > > will continue in much the way it has these last three years. > > > > I made the business, not technical, decision years ago to use jQuery > > > rather than Prototype. In many ways I prefer Prototype, although there > > > are some good ideas in jQuery (also some phenomenally bad ones, such > > > as how overloaded the API is). I still pitch in and moderate this > > > mailing list, and still answer questions, but for me the business case > > > is: Which library amongst the large number out there is kept up-to- > > > date; jumps on testing new browser versions for compatibility; has a > > > large ecosystem of code I can use; has a large pool of talent I can > > > hire or contract; has well-maintained, frequently updated and > > > extended, reliable, and documented UI helpers (jQueryUI vs. > > > Script.aculo.us); and is likely to be around long-term without heroic > > > effort from a single individual, or a small set of individuals. So I > > > went with jQuery, despite preferring Prototype in many ways. [I also > > > looked at Dojo, ExtJS, (more recently) Closure, and a few others.] > > > > It could have gone another way. People like me could have done more to > > > contribute to the project; leadership could have focussed on core > > > functionality, community-building, and developer (um) development > > > rather than side-issues; corporate sponsorship could have been courted > > > and perhaps ultimately found. But that didn't happen, and it didn't > > > happen because the Prototype community and leadership didn't make it > > > happen (perhaps corporate sponsorship wasn't desirable; fair 'nuff) > > > and because luck didn't go Prototype's way. (And don't think luck > > > isn't a big factor here.) > > > > I have nothing but respect and admiration for Andrew and everyone else > > > who has made Prototype what it is. And there's absolutely no reason > > > not to use it on your websites if you test with your target browsers > > > and it does what you need it to do. Again, Andrew is clear he'll keep > > > going with it, and I'm sure he'd be very happy to have help from > > > anyone reading this. > > > > So does Prototype have a future? Yes. What kind of future depends a > > > lot on the people reading this note. If you all, like me, don't have > > > time to contribute and Andrew has to largely work on his own, that's > > > one kind of future. If you can make time to help, get your companies > > > to let you help a bit during paid time, that sort of thing, then it > > > will have a different kind of future. I hope all these recent > > > questions about Prototype's future mark the beginning of a renaissance > > > for the library, a turning point of talent looking to help out. I wish > > > I could be part of it. > > > > Best, > > > -- > > > T.J. Crowder > > > Independent Software Engineer > > > tj / crowder software / com > > > www / crowder software / com > > > > On Sep 23, 12:34špm, buda <www...@pochta.ru> wrote: > > > > > It has long heard nothing about plans for the future. > > > > Browsers are evolving, and many library functions are duplicate the > > > > functions of JavaScript. > > > > Already implemented in all browsers support ECMAScript 5, but the > > > > library is not reflected. > > > > I would like to be able to not pull in hundreds of kilobytes to > > > > support older browsers and have only the functionality you need - as > > > > it is implemented in other libraries like JQuery. > > > > > What is the future of Prototype.js? > > > > Is it live or dead? Should I start to learn JQuery? -- 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.
