Hi TJ, I would like to help in the implementation of the UI interface for prototype, who do you think can lead this feature? I'm think I'm best using prototype than working on the core, I could help in this stage, and also I would love a renaissance of protoype.
I think in the same way of you... we have to do something in a way of help Andrew... Best Nahum On Sep 23, 11:19 am, "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, 1:07 am, 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: > v1.7 - November 2010 > v1.6.1 - September 2009 > v1.6.0.3 - 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: 114,842 > Prototype: 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, 12:34 pm, 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.
