> Sounds like a vote to remove the prototype dependency from > scriptaculous. I'm in favor for all sorts of reasons.
I'm not. Most of the appeal of scriptaculous to me is the prototype codebase (I use the prototype functions a lot more than the effects). > A clean separation obviates any the-owner-doesn't-participate-anymore- > style discussions. I want to be able to trim the file size by > removing unused functions. I want my developers to be able to > understand it without learning the new syntax. I don't want to have > to suffer the slowdown introduced by some of the syntactic sugar. I'm for separating it out to trim file size, but I for one like the syntactic sugar. It simplifies a lot more code than it adds. But, more testing should be done. If Sam could even just do beta releases, let the community test against their own code for a while to hash out bugs, that would go a long way. I'm using YUI at my new job, and I'm amazed at how little it actually does. The drag-n-drop stuff is lightyears behind scriptaculous (in terms of features). All of the nice prototype shortcuts are missing. It's like starting over from scratch again :( I do like how YUI has expanded versions of all their files, with lots of comments, and then also has a '-min' version that is compressed (no comments, minimal whitespace). It would be nice to do something similar with prototype and scriptaculous, since file size is a huge issue with them, IMO. Greg _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
